These are the armory precedents from the first tenure of
Master François la Flamme as Laurel Principal King of Arms.
During this period armory rulings were made primarily by Dame
Zenobia Naphtali, Wreath Queen of Arms. Please verify all
precedents you wish to use with the cited LoAR. There is an
index. The index for the text version of
these precedents is more detailed than for the on-line version.
Other than that, the two version are identical.

If a charge is only referenced once in these precedents (and
doesn't fall into a category such as BEAST -- Miscellaneous), it
will be found under CHARGE -- Miscellaneous. A complete listing
of these charges in found in the index.
These charges are not currently cross-referenced in the
index.

The category VISUAL COMPARISON deals with rulings relative to a
specific piece of armory (e.g., a branch is maintained). These
entries are listed alphabetically by the owner of the armory. A
list of the owners is found in the index.
The category "Mundane Armory" contains a list of real-world
armory that has been ruled not important enough to
protect. These entries are listed alphabetically by the owner of
the armory.

These precedents are referenced by armory owner's name, the
date of the Cover Letter (CL) or LoAR in month/year format (not
the publication date), the action taken (A for acceptance, R for
return, P for pend), and the kingdom where the action is listed
under. Unless otherwise noted at the beginning of a section, the
precedents are arranged in chronological order.

An interesting conflict question arose this month,
reminding us of the following precedent (still pertinent) from
the cover letter of the March 1993 LoAR:

Beginning immediately, therefore, if two submissions at the
same meeting are deemed to conflict, we will give preference to
the submission from the paid member. If both submitters are (or
aren't) paid members, then the first received takes priority,
as before.

[Magdalena Leonardi, 08/2001,
A-Drachenwald]
[Reblazon of device] The Administrative Handbook mandates
that an error in blazon which requires correction via a Letter of
Intent must also include an emblazon in the Letter of Intent. The
Letter of Intent did not provide such an emblazon in the Letter
of Intent, although a copy of the old form with the emblazon was
provided in the package to Wreath. This is therefore being
returned for lack of necessary paperwork. [Gilbert Rhys
MacLachlan, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
Unfortunately, the College can only register the emblazons it
receives, and we only received the emblazon for the augmented
device. Since we have no emblazon received for the unaugmented
device, it cannot be registered at this time. That would be akin
to making a "holding device", which is not acceptable by College
of Arms policy. [Anna z Pernštejna, 09/2001,
R-Middle]
Please advise the submitter to be careful on future submissions
to avoid outlines so thick that they appear to be fimbriation. My
staff advises me that, in many cases, the problem with thick
outlines that appear to be fimbriation is due to use of the
computer program "Blazons". As a general rule, heraldic art from
that program is flawed, and we encourage the College to educate
their submitters not to use this program to generate the artwork
used on their forms. [Magy McTerlach, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
Gillian's arms conflict with Iamys Huet's, found later in this
LoAR. Gillian is an SCA member, and therefore, her submission
takes precedence and may be registered without a letter of
permission from Iamys. She is unlikely to be surprised by these
events, as she has provided a letter of permission to conflict to
Iamys. [Gillian Kylpatrick, 11/2001,
A-Caid]
[reinstatement of released device as badge] The LoI
provided no evidence that the release of the bat-winged cat
device, on registration of her 1981 device change, was in error,
nor did the LoI present evidence of hardship. There was no
directive in the 1981 LoI, on the device change form, or in other
paperwork in Laurel files, asking that Laurel preserve the
previously registered device as a badge. Standard procedure under
the then-applicable 1979 rules for submission (like today) was to
release an old device if the device were changed, unless the
submitter requested that it be kept as a badge. In this
submitter's previous device change attempt in 1980 (returned at
Laurel), the LoI indicated that the previous device (the
bat-winged cat device) should be maintained as a badge. However,
it has never been College of Arms policy to assume that such
directives from one Letter of Intent carry through to another
Letter of Intent. Laurel notes that the submitter was
heraldically active in the SCA after the badge was released, as
the files show heraldic actions from her through 1983. Therefore
there is no clear evidence of a hardship existing by which she
might not have been informed that the previous device was
released. Laurel Sovereign of Arms would remind everyone that
decisions are made based on the information provided on the
forms, in the LoI, and in the comments provided by the College.
Therefore, we must hold by non scripta, non est: if it
isn't in writing, it doesn't exist. [Su of the Silver
Horn, 11/2001,
R-Caid]
No petition of support was provided for this augmentation. Since
the augmentation modifies the branch arms, a petition of support
is required. [Roaring Wastes, Barony of the, 11/2001,
R-Middle]
The device must also be returned for administrative reasons. The
petition does not include a blazon or emblazon of the arms being
supported. As with real-world petitions, the signatures should be
on the same piece of paper as a clear description of the item
being supported by the petition. That description, in an SCA
armorial petition, would ideally be a statement that We, the
members of (Branch) support this device for our branch device,
accompanied with a colored emblazon and a blazon. Such a petition
makes it clear that all the signatories, including the
blazon-illiterate signatories, understand the design being so
submitted. A line drawing of the emblazon combined with the
blazon (and some text describing the colors for the
blazon-illiterate) is just as good as a colored emblazon. A
blazon on the petition without an emblazon will suffice, as long
as the blazon is an accurate representation of the emblazon. If
that is not the case, then the petition will not be acceptable.
[Fiodnach Eoghan, Shire of, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[Device appeal] There were other procedural problems with
the submission. According to the Administrative Handbook section
IV.C.1: Appropriate forms must be included for all
submissions, including appeals, resubmissions, name and blazon
changes, etc. No forms were sent. There was no mini-emblazon
on the letter of intent. The Administrative Handbook section
V.B.2.e states: An accurate representation of each piece of
submitted armory shall be included on the letter of intent. Such
emblazons must be clearly labeled and large enough that all
elements of the design may be clearly distinguished.
[Madallaine Isabeau de Cat, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[a pall inverted vs. a shakefork inverted] ... by current
precedent, another CD between a pall inverted and a shakefork
inverted.

Note that the precedent giving a CD between a pall inverted and a
shakefork inverted is under discussion this month (see the cover
letter). However, there is no need to pend this submission until
the completion of a general policy discussion: it may be
registered now under current SCA policy. Should the policy change
as a result of the ongoing research and discussion, it will apply
to those submissions received after the policy change. [David
of Caithness, 12/2001,
A-Caid] [Ed.: CD granted between a pall inverted and a
shakefork inverted as of 08/2002 (see below)]
The device submission used wax-based crayons for the colors on
the form. This resulted in a very brownish Or, and was almost a
reason for return. Please do not use wax-based crayons on forms:
the colors do not always stay true, the metallics fade
particularly quickly, and wax crayons have been known to melt and
stick to other items in the forms file or binder. The
administrative handbook suggests Crayola Classic markers in the
General Procedures section (AH IV.C.1): "The preferred medium for
colored armory sets is to use watercolor markers such as Crayola
Classic Markers. Any form of neon or pastel markers or pencils
are inappropriate for the colored armory sets". [Oddr ölfúss
the Tanner, 01/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
The submission form has been altered from the standard West
Kingdom form and omits the check boxes which allow the submitter
to specify the disposition of her previous armory. Therefore her
previous device ... is released, which is the default action.
Please note that the check boxes on the submissions forms, which
should be standard throughout all kingdoms, are not supposed to
be altered. Valuable information may be lost by altering the
forms. In some cases, alterations to the forms may be extreme
enough to cause return of the submission, although that is not
necessary in this case. [Mari Greensleaves, 01/2002,
A-West]
The "Or" tincture is colored in a distinct orange color, which is
not a valid variant of Or. [Asbjørn Pedersen Marsvin,
01/2002,
R-Caid]
[a Norse serpent] The Norse serpent was declared an
unregisterable charge in the LoAR of May 1998, effective in
October of that year. This submitter had a submission in kingdom
using this charge before that deadine occurred, and no
resubmission was received at Laurel level until after the
deadline occurred. However, convincing evidence has been
presented by the Ansteorran College that there were significant
administrative problems with the submitter's local and (to a
lesser extent) regional and kingdom heralds during the period of
time in which he could have put in timely submission of this
device. While there is no paperwork proof that the armory was
resubmitted in a timely fashion, it has also been demonstrated
that much paperwork was lost by the pertinent heralds during the
time in which such a resubmission might have occurred. Kingdom
heralds have stated that the submitter did indeed attempt to
resubmit in a timely fashion. It therefore seems reasonable to
give this submitter the benefit of the doubt and allow him the
use of this charge under the hardship clause, as noted in the
Glossary of Terms:

It sometimes happens that a submission is delayed so long by
circumstances outside the submitter's control that changes in
the Rules for Submissions or their interpretation make it
unregisterable. Depending on the exact circumstances, and on a
case-by-case basis, the submission may be judged according to
the older Rules for Submissions and interpretations; this
policy is popularly known as the Hardship Clause.

[Johann Gunnbjornsson, 02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Gules, three axes argent] This is clear of conflict with
Wolfram von Eschenbach, Gules, two axes addorsed argent hafted
proper (important non-SCA arms). There is one CD for changing
the number of axes. The question was raised whether there is a
second CD for changing the orientation of one of Wolfram's axes.
If one looks at Wolfram's arms and counts the orientation change
before the number change then one half of the group is changed
and there is a CD for it. If one counts the number change first
then only one of three charges has changed orientation and so no
CD is granted. (A similar analysis can be made moving in the
other direction, from Sefferey's submission to Wolfram's
arms.)

The Rules for Submission give no indication that one class of
change is to be considered before another. Precedent
superficially appears to favor the less generous reading. As
Palimpsest noted, "Consider the return of the submission of
Leonia Dubarry in the January, 1993 LoAR. This compared three
charges 2&1 vs in chief two charges. Laurel wrote in part,
'To sum up: the change from three charges 2&1 to two charges
in chief cannot count a second CD for placement on the field,
because two charges can't be 2&1' While it is true that two
charges can't be 2&1, it is also true that three charges can
be in chief. This leaves the implication that the less generous
interpretation prevails." Consulting the 1993 text, however,
shows that Laurel also adduced examples of the change from three
charges 2 & 1 to two charges in chief being used as a cadency
step in period. These examples of cadency forced Laurel to apply
the less generous interpretation. In Sefferey's case, there is no
reason to believe that the change from two axes addorsed to three
axes all with blades to dexter is but one cadency step. Therefore
we can give the submitter the benefit of the doubt and grant the
second CD. [Sefferey of Wessex, 02/2002,
A-Meridies]
[Badge for Thrown Weapons Deputy] This badge is for a
deputy for the marshallate in charge of thrown weapons. Precedent
is mixed about whether deputies to major offices may have Kingdom
badges assigned to them, or whether they must use a corporate
level badge. The Sovereigns of Arms and Laurel Clerk discussed
the issue, and Laurel determined the following: A combat marshal
must be quickly identifiable on the field during inter-kingdom
wars. Thus, it is important that the badges for marshals should
be the same throughout the Society. Such badges should therefore
be registered at the corporate level, rather than the kingdom
level. This is currently the case for the Equestrian Marshallate,
whose badge was registered at the Society level as Sable, two
tilting lances in saltire and in chief a chamfron Or. [An
Tir, Kingdom of, 02/2002,
R-An Tir]
Both Dafydd and Maridonna are SCA members, so the item on the
earliest dated Letter of Intent takes precedence, and the
Outlands letter predated the Meridies letter. [Maridonna
Benvenuti, 02/2002,
R-Meridies][Ed.: Returned for conflict with Dafydd]
From Laurel: Similar in the geometric sense: mini-emblazons,
that is

In the last few months, there have been cases where the
mini-emblazon included with the Letter of Intent did not
accurately represent the emblazon on the submission form. If the
emblazon does not match the form, the CoA cannot produce useful
commentary, which in turn does not allow a decision on that item.
The CoA has enough to review without commenting on the "wrong"
item. A mismatch between the LoI emblazon and what is on the
submission form can be reason for administrative return. If you
produce LoIs, please double-check that the mini-emblazons on your
letters are a good representation of the emblazons on the
submission forms.

Photoreduction is recommended over redrawing. Scanning can be
used with care. Many complaints have been received about
mini-emblazons which were produced by scanning at inappropriate
settings, rendering elements of the armory invisible or otherwise
unidentifiable. [04/2002,
CL]
The submitter did not check any boxes on the form indicating the
disposition of his previous device, Ermine, a fox rampant
contourny gules maintaining in dexter forepaw a rapier sable, a
bordure sable semy-de-lys Or. It is therefore released by
default, per the Administrative Handbook, section IV.C.7,
"Instructions for Disposition of Changed Items". [Balthasar
Yvon Charon, 04/2002,
A-An Tir]
[a tower sable ... environed in base with a laurel wreath
vert] The device must be returned for lack of a name to which
to register it. The armory had an additional problem which would
not allow it to be accepted. Laurel wreaths should not be drawn
with another charge between the tips of the wreath, except
possibly when the charge between the tips is very thin. "[A
laurel wreath and in chief a roundel] Second, the laurel wreath
is not closed (or even nearly so), and if it were, there would be
no room for a roundel. A properly drawn laurel wreath should not
have sufficient room between its tips to place another
charge"(LoAR 2/00). [Hawk's Rest, Shire of, 04/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Transfer of name and device to Daniel del Cavallo] This
is a posthumous transfer. The Laurel office was provided with (1)
a copy of Caterina's real-world will, (2) a letter from
Caterina's legal heir transferring Caterina's name and device to
Daniel del Cavallo, and (3) a letter from Daniel accepting
transfer of Caterina's name and device.

We suggest that all people with registered armory consider
writing an explicit heraldic will. Directions on how to create
and file a heraldic will are in the newest Administrative
Handbook section IV.F with a template for the will itself in
Appendix D. This newest version of the Administrative Handbook is
available on-line at http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/admin.html
as well as from the usual print sources. [Caterina del
Cavallo, 05/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
According to the September 2001 LoAR, "We do not have a similar
period pattern of a wide range of field treatments based on
various tessellations. Hence, after the LoAR of April 2002,
honeycombed will no longer be registerable in the SCA."
Therefore, this motif is no longer registerable.

Rampart expressed concern that this ruling was not available at
the time the Letter of Intent was issued, possibly due in part to
a misconception that the ruling was on the November 2001 LoAR,
rather than the September 2001 LoAR. The cover letter for the
LoAR of September 2001 is dated December 12, 2001, and the LoAR
was mailed within a day or two of December 10 (the date that
Master Symond, who is kind enough to do our mailings, received
the LoAR). The decision was therefore available for a full month
before the January 17, 2002, Letter of Intent upon which this
submission was forwarded to Laurel.

Pelican and Wreath expect that submissions heralds will be aware
of all rulings up to and including those made in LoARs which were
mailed during the month before the date of a Letter of Intent.
Standard College of Arms policy schedules the grace period for
disallowed practices (when such grace periods are implemented as
part of the Laurel decision) so that decisions may be made at
kingdom based on the LoAR issued the month previous to the
submission at hand. The grace period is not scheduled to cover
items which were in submission in a kingdom Internal Letter of
Intent, in the hands of a local consulting herald, or earlier in
the consultation and submission process. Some pertinent
precedents showing this timeline, or a slightly tighter timeline
(depending on the postmark date for the LoARs in question) are:

No evidence was presented that a roundel enchancré is a period
charge. Therefore, barring period evidence of its usage, after
the July 1997 Laurel meeting we will no longer register it.
(LoAR March 1997 p. 2) [note: deadline set so that it will
cover all LoIs issued on or before March 1997, when the
decision was published]

Commentary was nearly as strong in favor of banning garden
rosebuds from armory. Consequently, we will accept whatever
garden rosebuds may be in LoIs issued before December 1994, but
no further registrations of this charge will be made. (CL for
November 1994) [note: again, the deadline is set so that it
will cover all LoIs issued on or before the Cover Letter date
of November 1994.]

Please note that not all disallowed practices are
given a grace period before they are disallowed. The institution
of a grace period for a disallowed practice is at the discretion
of the Sovereigns of Arms. [Gauvain Eisenbein, 05/2002,
R-Outlands]
The College should note that a grace period when a new policy is
implemented is not required by Laurel policy, but is implemented
at the discretion of Laurel and the pertinent Sovereigns of Arms.
The wording of the December 2001 Cover Letter on this issue was
interpreted by some to mean that a grace period was required.
This is not so. A grace period did seem to be appropriate in the
case of this submission. [Gwenllian de Castell Coch,
06/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[(Fieldless) A tankard argent] Conflict with Giles
MacManus, registered in the Atlantian section of this LoAR,
Per bend sinister sable and gules, a tankard argent. There
is only one CD, for fieldlessness.

The cover letter for the March 1993 LoAR (dated 8 May 1993)
stated:

At their April 93 meeting, the Board of Directors decided to
accept my recommendation on how to prevent SCA members from
being disadvantaged by non-members during the heraldic
submission process. Corpora explicitly forbids us to consider
the membership status of an armory's owner, once the armory is
registered; the Board agreed that the only time a member's
submission could be returned for conflict by a non-member's
armory is when the two were considered at the same Laurel
meeting. Beginning immediately, therefore, if two submissions
at the same meeting are deemed to conflict, we will give
preference to the submission from the paid member. If both
submitters are (or aren't) paid members, then the first
received takes priority, as before.

This gives an advantage to members' submissions, without
requiring anyone to check every submitter's membership status.
Laurel need only call the Registrar, on those rare occasions
when membership becomes important; this happens seldom enough
to impose no undue burden on Laurel, the Registrar, or the
College.

This policy has not been rescinded. It has been
upheld a number of times since:

Since both submissions were from the same month, we followed
the strictures from the Board which meant that we had to
determine the membership status of the two submitters, since if
one was a member and one was not, the member would get priority
(LoAR September 1996).

According to the registry, both submitters were members in
August 2001, and thus priority is determined by the date on the
LoI (LoAR August 2001).

Wreath therefore telephoned the registry. The
registry indicated that Giles MacManus's membership was current
at the time of the Wreath meeting, and that Caterina had not been
a member since March 2000. Since the armory of a member takes
precedence over armory of non-members, Giles's armory takes
precedence. [Caterina Amiranda della Quercia, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Or goutty de sang] The gouttes are too numerous and too
small to be identifiable. There was a significant discrepancy
between the emblazon on the forms and the mini-emblazon on the
Letter of Intent. There are approximately 130 gouttes on the
form, and approximately 40 gouttes on the mini-emblazon. Forty
charges is a large number to have on the field compared to the
standard period depiction of a group of strewn charges (which
often has as few as ten charges on the field). As long as the
charges in a group of strewn charges maintain their
identifiability, they are acceptable regardless of the exact
number of charges in the emblazon. [Steffan von Hessen,
07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
The pile here is drawn with the pile issuing from the upper
corners of the shield. This is different from the mini-emblazon.
Since the full-sized emblazon is the final arbiter of the
drawing, this must be returned. To quote from one of the more
recent of the many rulings on the topic, "The pile is not drawn
properly; a pile should not issue from the corners of the shield,
but from farther in on the chief. As the pile also does not
extend to base, it cannot be reblazoned as a chaussé field" (LoAR
July 2000). [Michael of Ravenskeep, 07/2002,
R-Outlands]
[acceptance of transfer] The Letter of Intent stated, "The
e-mail requesting transfer, and Their Majesties' e-mail accepting
transfer, are attached to the submission form". General Laurel
policy has been explicit in indicating that official
correspondence should be signed and that, while a scanned copy of
a signed document is acceptable, e-mail is not. While the section
of the Administrative Handbook dealing with transfers does not
explicitly reiterate the requirement for a signature, Laurel has
stated that a signature is needed in this case as well. The
kingdom and Mistress Iduna have provided the College with signed
transfer paperwork, so the transfer may be effected.

The LoI noted that this badge was intended to be used by the
officer known as the Keeper of the Kingdom Directory. Per
Laurel, "The Directory Keeper is listed on the Artemisia web page
as a deputy of the Chronicler." Badges may not be registered for
officers (including deputy officers) if a kingdom or corporate
level badge for that position exists. In November 1980, a badge
was registered for the Chronicler of the Society for Creative
Anachronism: Per pale sable and argent, two quills conjoined
in pile counterchanged, a chief gules. We have dropped the
intended designator in order to register this badge to the
Kingdom of Artemisia. [Artemisia, Kingdom of, 10/2002,
A-Artemisia]
The shire's petition does not show support for this device. The
petition does not contain a blazon, or any indication of
tincture. The small line drawing emblazon does not show any
charges on the chief. In addition, the laurel wreath is depicted
on the petition as two curved lines making the bottom part of a
semicircle with an 'x' at the bottom. This could only be viewed
as a stylized laurel wreath with great charity. Because the
petition needs to be reissued, when it is reissued, the depiction
of the laurel wreath on the petition should match the wreath on
the device. [Tir Briste, Shire of, 11/2002,
R-Meridies]
This submission also has administrative problems. It was
submitted as a new device for the alternate persona, on a device
form. A submitter may only have one device, and Cynuise already
has a registered device, Argent, a griffin passant to sinister
vert within a bordure rayonny sable. A submitter may
designate secondary armory for the use of an alternate persona,
but the secondary armory should be submitted on a badge form and
should be designated as a badge instead of a device. Please
advise the submitter, on resubmission, to submit appropriately on
a badge or device form. If submitting on a device form, the form
should indicate that the submission is a device change and should
also indicate whether the previous device should be retained as a
badge or released. [Cynuise ó Cianáin of Bardsea, 11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[a cross fleury vs. a cross of four ermine spots] There is
a CD ... for changing the type of cross. RfS X.4.e states "Types
of charges considered to be separate in period, for example a
lion and an heraldic tyger, will be considered different." Both
crosses fleury and crosses of ermine spots were considered to be
separate in period and were drawn so that they could be visually
distinguished from each other.

Some commenters noted the following precedent: "We could see no
more than a minor point of difference between the cross of
conjoined ermine spots and the cross fleury" (LoAR 21 May 89, p.
23). It is important to recall that the criteria of the current
Rules for Submissions are not the same as the criteria of the
rules which were in effect in May 1989. The current version of
the rules relies on historical and visual criteria for
difference, while previous versions of the rules relied mostly on
visual criteria. Thus, a precedent that a particular change was
worth either a major or a minor point of difference under the old
rules does not clearly translate into the presence or absence of
a CD. [Geffroi de Mosterol, 12/2002,
A-Ealdormere]
The Letter of Intent stated that this badge was intended for the
joint use of the Barony of Concordia of the Snows and the Shire
of Bergental. The Administrative Handbook only allows joint
registration by two individuals - branches may not participate in
a joint registration. To quote from section II.D.3, "Badges may
be registered by an individual, by two individuals jointly, or by
a Society branch." There is no administrative ambiguity about
which branch should be registering this badge, as the paperwork
received by the Laurel office only refers to the Barony of
Concordia of the Snows, with no reference to the Shire of
Bergental. [Concordia of the Snows, Barony of, 01/2003,
A-East]
[a cross patonce vs. a cross bottony] A second CD must
come from the type difference between a cross bottony and a cross
patonce.

SCA precedent has so far consistently held that there is a CD
between crosses bottony/crosslet and crosses
fleury/flory/patonce. Kraken provided some citations from
Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials, taken from the
beginning of the section on single crosses. In these examples, we
find armory using both crosses bottony/crosslet, and crosses
fleury/flory/patonce, belonging to people with the same surname.
He therefore rightly raised the question of whether we should
continue to consider these types of cross to have been distinct
in period (and thus worth a CD for the change in type), or
whether we should consider them to have been artistic variants of
each other in period (with no CD for the change in type).

In researching this question, we have used Kraken's examples, and
added further research from Papworth, as well as Brault's The
Rolls of Arms of Edward I ("Aspilogia III"), Cecil
Humphery-Smith's Anglo-Norman Armory II, and the
Dictionary of British Armorials (henceforth abbreviated
DBA). We realize that these sources provide an unfortunately
Anglocentric view of heraldry, but the sources at our disposal
which allow this sort of research are largely English - and the
research is being used to elaborate on some initial information
that is also English.

The first, and most important question to ask, is whether
changing the type of cross could ever be a change indicating
different branches of the family (cadency). A change which could
indicate cadency is a change which could be worth a CD. It
appears that at least in some cases, the change in the type of
cross indicates cadency. One good example is the family of Ward,
as seen in the various sources cited above, where different
branches of the family are specifically cited as using distinct
cross types. As a general rule, type changes are one of the more
common types of cadency change in period - much more common than
cadency changes in posture and arrangement. So it is unsurprising
that changing the type of a cross is, in some cases, a cadency
change.

Since changing a cross type may sometimes indicate cadency, we
must therefore determine whether the changes in cross type which
we have found are indicative of cadency, or if they are
indicative of artistic variation. Some ways of demonstrating that
two types of charge are artistic variants of each other are:

- Demonstrating a general pattern of interchangeability between
the two types of charge: most armory using one sort of charge
is also found using the other sort of charge, or there is a
temporal trend so that earlier versions of the charge are drawn
in one way and later forms are drawn in the other way.

- Demonstrating that the choice of how to draw the charge was
most likely due to the artist, because the artist of one roll
would draw the charge consistently in one fashion and the
artist of another roll would draw the charge consistently in
another fashion.

- Demonstrating that there are numerous cases in which a single
individual bore variations of the same sort of cross.

In all the cases above, the analysis should consider
the source material and remove any erroneous material.

We were unable to demonstrate a general pattern of
interchangeability between these two types of cross. It appeared
that most of the time, a family used exclusively either crosses
bottony/crosslet (henceforth abbreviated "bottony") or crosses
patonce/fleury/flory (henceforth abbreviated "patonce"). This was
particularly evident in the examination of the better-researched
sources; as a general rule, Papworth's research is considered to
be less authoritative than Brault's, Humphrey-Smith's, or that of
the compilers of the DBA. Note that the DBA does not extend
through the "cross" category yet, but DBA includes a fair number
of examples of armory using either "bottony" or "patonce" crosses
as secondary or tertiary charges in the company of bends,
cantons, and chevrons.

We were unable to demonstrate that the choice of how to draw the
cross was due to stylistic variations between artists. As Kraken
noted, Harleian MS 1407 shows the family of Goldisbrgh/Goldesbry
in both "patonce" and "bottony variants". The families of
Brerlegh and Aton both are shown as using "patonce" and "bottony"
variants in Glover's Ordinary.

We were unable to find any trend where a single individual was
noted as using both "bottony" and "patonce" types of cross. We
freely admit that we were not able to isolate many cases where we
could attribute armory to a specific individual, so our
researches in this area were not particularly compelling.

Lastly, it seemed apparent that Papworth's citations from
Glover's Ordinary were responsible for a disproportionate number
of the cases where one family appeared to use "bottony" and
"patonce" crosses. These examples include the families of Aton,
Brerlegh, Ward, and Taddington/Tuddington. If Papworth's
interpretation of Glover's Ordinary is viewed as suspect, we are
left with almost no reason to consider crosses "bottony" and
"patonce" to be artistic variants of each other.

Thus, until new evidence is presented, we affirm the following
precedent: "...there is still a CD between a cross flory
and a cross bottony" (LoAR August 1999). [Miryam æt
West Seaxe, 02/2003,
A-Caid]
Some members of the College noted that another piece of armory
with similar design was accepted without comment, and asked if
the September 2000 precedent had been overturned due to that
acceptance. Please note that registrations without comment do not
establish precedent. [Magdelena Drucker, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
From Laurel: Laurel Does Not Know It All
We have all seen instances when a submission was returned that
was documented from a previously accepted submission - the old
standard phrase is "Past registration does not ensure future
registration." We are hopefully continuing to learn and this
moving target can sometimes cause a name or device to be returned
even just a month after a similar submission was accepted. A few
weeks ago there was a discussion concerning the reply to a "But
Laurel said ..." argument. The best summary of the situation
comes from Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn:

One should always read any decision by Laurel as being prefixed
by "Based on the available knowledge, research, and analysis
available to us at this time, it is our understanding that
..."

Many heralds (on all levels of the hierarchy) often forget this
and word statements of current knowledge as if they were
Absolute Truth, but there's still an onus on the listener as
well to insert the disclaimer.

We require your help to know "the truth". The
current knowledge is extended by the research of the College of
Arms, the College of Heralds, and the submitters. Any
documentation provided on a submission, whether it is from the
submitter, the Kingdom College of Heralds, or the College of Arms
commenters, goes a long way to helping us all learn. If you
provide "the truth" in your commentary and submissions work, that
leads to better recreation and we all benefit from the latest
best attempt at determining "the truth". [04/2003,
CL]
The badge is transferred from the Principality of Northshield. As
an administrative note, both parts of the transfer (the sending
from Northshield and the reception by Moraig) should be separate
items on the Letter of Intent. [Moraig Ann Drummond,
04/2003,
A-Middle]
We apologize to the submitter for not mentioning this conflict at
the time of the previous return, but the College of Arms did not
bring it to our attention at that time. The Laurel office has
been known to give the benefit of the doubt to a submission when
a possible problem was not mentioned in the previous return, but
was present in the previous submission and was clearly visible to
Laurel when viewing the submission. Such a "clearly visible"
problem could include possible problems with the artwork of the
submission or the general heraldic style of the submission.
Unmentioned conflicts are not clearly visible to Laurel and thus
do not fall into this category. [Charles the Grey of
Mooneschadowe, 06/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
Unfortunately, because there was a significant discrepancy
between the artwork in the full-sized emblazon and the
mini-emblazon provided to the College of Arms in the Letter of
Intent, we were unable to get the College's input on this
armorial style problem. ... Usually we would rely heavily on the
College's input to determine whether the artwork in the
submission was too ambiguous to be registered or whether it could
legitimately be registered with instructions to the submitter on
how to draw the emblazon more clearly.

A significant discrepancy between the full-sized and
mini-emblazon can be reason for return in itself, and is
certainly a reason for return when the mini-emblazon's depiction
masks a significant style issue with the armory on the full-sized
emblazon. The Administrative Handbook requirements for
preparation of letters of intent state that "An accurate
representation of each piece of submitted armory shall be
included on the letter of intent." The Cover Letter for the April
2002 LoAR stated:

In the last few months, there have been cases where the
mini-emblazon included with the Letter of Intent did not
accurately represent the emblazon on the submission form. If
the emblazon does not match the form, the CoA cannot produce
useful commentary, which in turn does not allow a decision on
that item. The CoA has enough to review without commenting on
the "wrong" item. A mismatch between the LoI emblazon and what
is on the submission form can be reason for administrative
return. If you produce LoIs, please double-check that the
mini-emblazons on your letters are a good representation of the
emblazons on the submission forms.

Photoreduction is recommended over redrawing. Scanning can be
used with care. Many complaints have been received about
mini-emblazons which were produced by scanning at inappropriate
settings, rendering elements of the armory invisible or
otherwise unidentifiable.

[Yosef ben Ami, 06/2003,
R-West]
The submitter's name, Caterina da Napoli, was returned in August
2002. That LoAR was mailed well before this submission was sent
to Laurel. Holding names are only formed for armory submissions
that appear on an LoI before the LoAR containing the name return
could be received and processed by the submission herald, not
submissions that appear on an LoI long after the name has already
been returned. Thus, even if this submission did not have
armorial style problems, it would need to be returned for lack of
a name under which to register it. [Katerina da Napoli,
07/2003,
R-Lochac]
There are several letters used in the submissions process that
require a signature. If a signature is required, then the letter
must include a copy of the handwritten signature. A text e-mail
message does not meet the requirement for a handwritten
signature. [08/2003,
CL]
... we note that the submission form designated the badge for the
use of the College of Scribes, but this was not stated in the
Letter of Intent. A future resubmission should be clear about
whether Kingdom intends to designate the badge for a particular
use. [Æthelmearc, Kingdom of, 08/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
... we still have not received an acceptable petition of support.
We have received a petition which consists of a piece of paper
which describes the device being submitted (very accurately and
completely) but the signatures are on a separate piece of paper
which has been cut off halfway down the sheet and then taped to
the description paper. As noted in the LoAR of November 2001, "As
with real-world petitions, the signatures should be on the same
piece of paper as a clear description of the item being supported
by the petition." You wouldn't want your bank to cash a check
which had a snipped separate piece of paper with the signature
taped onto the check - the same principle applies here.

Lastly, Administrative Handbook section IV.C.5 states "In the
case of branches with no ruling noble, this support may be
demonstrated by a petition of a majority of the populace and
officers or by a petition of the seneschal and at least
three-quarters of the other local officers." The signatures
provided here do not indicate which (if any) officers have signed
the petition. As a result it is difficult to determine if a
majority of the populace and officers - or the seneschal and at
least three-quarters of the other local officers - have signed
the signature list. The format of the petition is also unclear
about whether the signatures shows both SCA and real names of the
submitters - or just SCA names. It is thus hard to determine how
many people have signed the petition. [Loch Meadhonach, Shire
of, 08/2003,
R-Caltonir]
From Laurel: Time is a Precious Resource

Time is something that we all value and never seem to have in
excess. As busy as we all are, it is a shame to waste time on
activities that accomplish little or no good. It is a crime to do
something only part way that then requires others to spend time
to complete the work. There is a disturbing trend within the
College of Arms to take shortcuts that save a little time up
front but cause others more work.

Letters of Intent

When you take a shortcut on summarizing the documentation in a
Letter of Intent or simply do not include documentation of a
locative byname for a name submission, you are forcing the next
person in the submission process to complete the work you
started. The few minutes you saved by not including the necessary
information will cost one or more people those minutes and
perhaps more to recreate the information. (If you don't have the
information and wish the help of the College then please
specifically ask otherwise it looks like an omission.) If the
omission is corrected by the kingdom college, the number of
people doing the rework is limited, but if the rework must be
done during commentary by the College of Arms, the amount of time
is multiplied by potentially more than 50 people.

If you are unsure what is required either for documentation for a
submission or in summarization in a letter of intent, I direct
your attention to the Administrative Handbook (section V.B.2.b),
the December 2002 LoAR Cover Letter secion "From Pelican:
Inadequate Summarization of Submissions", and the November 2001
LoAR Cover Letter section "From Laurel Clerk: Things Missing from
LoIs".

Commentary

Another place where shortcuts are tempting is in commentary to
the College of Arms. We assume certain expertise and basic
knowledge in our fellow commenters and in the Sovereigns of Arms.
This relied-upon expertise can lull us into believing that a
quick comment such as "we no longer register snort-gaskets" is
sufficient. When making a statement or argument in which you give
an "I think" or "I remember" or even "this is not done", please
provide a reference to support your statement. A reference with
no documentation or support requires us to spend time before or
during the decision meeting looking for what you base your
statement upon. If you do not have the time to provide support
for a statement, it is better to omit that statement from your
commentary.

In Summary

The volume of submissions has grown too large for the College of
Arms to be able to regularly completely (re-)document an element
of a submission. If the supporting documentation is not provided
or adequately summarized on the Letter of Intent, the submission
will be returned so that the deficiency may be corrected.

The high volume also means that the Sovereign of Arms do not have
the time to search for the references that were vaguely given in
commentary. Statements in commentary that allude to documentation
but do not cite the source will be considered rumor and may be
ignored. [09/2003,
CL]
It is important to realize that a submission may need to be
returned because of a problem with the mini-emblazon, even if the
full-sized emblazon does not share that problem. If it appears
that the College fully researched the submission despite the
problems with the mini-emblazon, we may accept the submission.
However, in many cases, the College does not fully research the
submission for all style and conflict problems because they felt
that the artistic problem on the mini-emblazon was a sufficient
reason for return. When this happens, the mismatch between the
mini-emblazon and the full-sized emblazon is a reason for return.
[Caitilín ni Killane, 09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
This month we received a request to honor a heraldic will, and we
were able to honor it. However, the submission was not
accompanied by any evidence that the person who had filed the
heraldic will had, in fact, passed on. This was an uncomfortable
situation. Our staff reminded us that it is by no means unknown
for people to lie about a genuine real-world legal document with
malicious intent, so it would be best if the Laurel office were
provided with evidence of the death of the heraldic testator. On
the other hand, we had no desire to cause any further grief to
the bereaved by requesting this of the submitter. Laurel was able
to determine that the heraldic will was valid. However, we advise
kingdoms to accompany heraldic wills with some evidence
indicating that the deceased has, indeed, passed on, to avoid the
possibility that a living submitter might be a victim of a cruel
prank. [12/2003,
CL]
Note that jointly owned armory counts against the registration
limit of the primary owner of the badge. As noted in the Cover
Letter for the July 1992 LoAR, "My policy shall be that the first
name on the submission be the main badge-holder --- who has the
right to release, grant permission to conflict, etc. --- and the
second name receive the cross-reference in the A&O." The
person with the right to release or grant permission to conflict
must necessarily have this item counted against his registration
limit. [James Andrew MacAllister, 12/2003,
R-West]
In the spirit of the day after the nominal print date of this
cover letter, we should issue a warning about The Quarter,
http://www.thequarter.org/. It is an SCA newsletter completely
devoted to humor and satire. Those incautious enough to read it
while drinking may hurt their nasal passages and their keyboards,
and anyone else may be driven to drink. This newsletter takes
especial pleasure in poking fun at heralds and revealing our
secrets. Laurel and Laurel staff have even been deceived by their
irony.

Therefore, we are putting http://www.thequarter.org/ into
Administrative Handbook Appendix X, "Index Librorum Prohibitorum"
("Index of Prohibited Books"). All heralds are formally enjoined
from reading it without prior written permission from Laurel.
Laurel expects this injunction to be observed as rigorously as
the last time Laurel "formally enjoined" something in Trimaris
(LoAR of December 1992). [01/2004,
CL]

ADMINISTRATIVE
-- Comments and Commenting

There have been a substantial
number of possible visual conflicts called since August 2001. My
staff and I have duly looked at each emblazon, and it has been an
interesting romp through the binders, the CDs, and the occasional
hurried scan and email of a JPG from Filing Central in Austin
(thanks, Pelican!) During our first two months, I made certain
that each visual check was duly discussed in the LoAR. After
looking at the length of the LoARs, the visual checks will only
be reported if they appear to be important to discuss. I'll still
look at all of them, have no fear. [10/2001,
CL]
[Ambiguity in wording] The Cover Letter for the February
2002 LoAR stated:

In this month's submission for Aethelwine Aethelredson
(Calontir), a commenter raised the question of whether we
should protect the non-SCA arms of the Earl of Atholl.

Ordinarily, such a request during the commentary cycle would
cause a pend of the associated SCA armory and would be
discussed there rather than in the Cover Letter. In this case,
the armory in question was returned for a different reason, so
there was no need for a pend. Laurel procedure in the past has
been to rule on all requests for protection, whether they are
raised in commentary pertinent to a submission in progress or
whether they are raised in Letters of Intent to Protect.
Therefore, this "orphaned" issue is presented for your
consideration here in the Cover Letter.

The Cover Letter then quoted the section of the
letter of comment which requested protection of these arms.

This item is being pended for the College's further consideration
for two reasons. One reason is the ambiguity in the wording of
the Cover Letter for the February 2002 LoAR. The second reason is
the amount of new and pertinent information on this item which
was received by the Laurel office, but which had not been
presented to the College.

On the issue of ambiguity: As a general rule, when new items are
presented to the College, the intent of the writer is clear to
the readers. "Letter of Intent" is an accurate term. The Cover
Letter for the February 2002 LoAR did not state that it was the
intent of either Laurel or Wreath to protect the arms of the Earl
of Atholl. It just asked for "consideration" of a commenter's
request for protection of these arms.

The ambiguity in the request for consideration became apparent
when we found that we must rule on this submission based on very
sparse commentary. The general policy of the College of Arms has
long been that "silence implies assent." The intent of the writer
of a Letter of Intent is assumed to be supported (or at least,
not opposed) by all members of the College who do not comment on
the submission. Since the intent of Laurel and Wreath concerning
this submission was not made clear in the Cover Letter, it was
not clear how we should interpret the silence concerning this
request for consideration. We asked some members of the College
how they would interpret this silence, and received very
disparate answers, implying that the ambiguity was a legitimate
problem. Some members of the College felt that, since the Cover
Letter did not state Laurel's (or Wreath's) intent to protect the
submission, silence implied a lack of support for protection.
Others felt that since the cover letter quoted the commenter's
request for protection, silence implied support for the
commenter's request for protection.

While the College is not, and has never been, a "voting
organization", the criteria by which we choose to protect, or not
to protect, real-world arms involve opinions as well as fact.
Fame, familiarity, and importance are not easy to quantify. If
twenty members of the College all provide the same argument
explaining why two pieces of armory conflict, the argument is no
more or less compelling than if only one commenter has done so.
However, if twenty members of the College all state that a
particular piece of real-world armory is, or is not, "important",
"famous" or "familiar", that shared opinion is more compelling
than hearing the same opinion espoused by only one commenter. We
therefore strongly encourage all members of the College to
comment on issues of protection of real-world armory. While
scholarship and informed discussion are always preferred, there
is use in even a short comment like "The evidence presented
[does]/[does not] justify protecting this armory in the SCA."

It is therefore necessary to state unambiguously how silence will
be interpreted in reference to this pended item. Because this
item originated as a request for protection of the Earl of
Atholl's arms as important non-SCA arms, silence will be
interpreted as support for (or lack of opposition to) the
protection of the arms. Please note that this statement does
not reflect the personal opinions of either Wreath or Laurel.
[Atholl, Earl of, 08/2002,P-Laurel]
When quoting from the Armorial and Ordinary, please cite the date
of the armory as well as the name and blazon. The Wreath files
are organized in three different places, based on date: the 1985
and before CD archives, the 1986-1993 CD archives, and the
binders. We can save valuable time in the meeting if the
registration date is on the citation. My staff and I thank you
for your consideration.

Also, when citing cover letters, please cite the LoAR with which
the cover letter is associated, as well as the date of the cover
letter. It helps find the cover letter in the archives somewhat
faster. [10/2001,
CL]
Some members of the College noted that another piece of armory
with similar design was accepted without comment, and asked if
the September 2000 precedent had been overturned due to that
acceptance. Please note that registrations without comment do not
establish precedent. [Magdelena Drucker, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
From Laurel: Time is a Precious Resource

Time is something that we all value and never seem to have in
excess. As busy as we all are, it is a shame to waste time on
activities that accomplish little or no good. It is a crime to do
something only part way that then requires others to spend time
to complete the work. There is a disturbing trend within the
College of Arms to take shortcuts that save a little time up
front but cause others more work.

Letters of Intent

When you take a shortcut on summarizing the documentation in a
Letter of Intent or simply do not include documentation of a
locative byname for a name submission, you are forcing the next
person in the submission process to complete the work you
started. The few minutes you saved by not including the necessary
information will cost one or more people those minutes and
perhaps more to recreate the information. (If you don't have the
information and wish the help of the College then please
specifically ask otherwise it looks like an omission.) If the
omission is corrected by the kingdom college, the number of
people doing the rework is limited, but if the rework must be
done during commentary by the College of Arms, the amount of time
is multiplied by potentially more than 50 people.

If you are unsure what is required either for documentation for a
submission or in summarization in a letter of intent, I direct
your attention to the Administrative Handbook (section V.B.2.b),
the December 2002 LoAR Cover Letter secion "From Pelican:
Inadequate Summarization of Submissions", and the November 2001
LoAR Cover Letter section "From Laurel Clerk: Things Missing from
LoIs".

Commentary

Another place where shortcuts are tempting is in commentary to
the College of Arms. We assume certain expertise and basic
knowledge in our fellow commenters and in the Sovereigns of Arms.
This relied-upon expertise can lull us into believing that a
quick comment such as "we no longer register snort-gaskets" is
sufficient. When making a statement or argument in which you give
an "I think" or "I remember" or even "this is not done", please
provide a reference to support your statement. A reference with
no documentation or support requires us to spend time before or
during the decision meeting looking for what you base your
statement upon. If you do not have the time to provide support
for a statement, it is better to omit that statement from your
commentary.

In Summary

The volume of submissions has grown too large for the College of
Arms to be able to regularly completely (re-)document an element
of a submission. If the supporting documentation is not provided
or adequately summarized on the Letter of Intent, the submission
will be returned so that the deficiency may be corrected.

The high volume also means that the Sovereign of Arms do not have
the time to search for the references that were vaguely given in
commentary. Statements in commentary that allude to documentation
but do not cite the source will be considered rumor and may be
ignored. [09/2003,
CL]
Conflict with Earl of Morris, Lozengy sable and gules, a hart
rampant argent. ... More than [one] commenter cited the
conflict above as being "important real-world armory" for
"the Earl of Morris." However, the Armorial and Ordinary,
and the Earl of Morris submission form, are clear that
this registration, originally from 1973 albeit reblazoned later,
is not real-world armory. It is just for some SCA guy named [Sir]
Earl. Please be precise in your citations. . [Áedán uí
Néill, 02/2004,
R-Atlantia]

ADMINISTRATIVE -- A Cautionary Word
Regarding "Conflict Tables"

From Wreath: A Cautionary
Word Regarding "Conflict Tables"
It has come to our attention that there is a growing trend in the
College to create "conflict tables". These tables summarize
precedent on some class of armorial elements, such as crosses,
flowers, or lines of division. The tables use a simple format
that allows one to (for example) compare two types of crosses and
look up whether they have no difference, a single CD
("significant" difference), or X.2 difference ("substantial"
difference.) The tables also allow the user to identify the LoARs
in which the rulings referenced by the table were made.

We understand the desire to provide a quick and simple summary of
conflict issues, and we thank the compilers of these tables for
their hard work. However, we caution the College that these
tables may inadvertently contribute to an inaccurate view of the
heraldic issues. We have reached this conclusion by investigating
the source of some assertions made in College of Arms commentary,
which turned out to be based on overgeneralizations from conflict
tables, rather than being based on the combination of the Rules
for Submission, examples of period armory, and precedents (past
rulings in LoARs). We are happy to see that the conflict tables
of which we are aware do reference an LoAR for each assertion
made in the table. We suggest that people make use of the
conflict tables, but that they do not make up their minds about
conflict issues until they have read the full LoAR ruling
referenced by the table, and until they have read the LoAR
rulings referenced in closely related areas of the table.

In many cases, if there is not a clear general ruling pertaining
to some class of armorial elements, it is because the issues
pertaining to that class of elements are not easily summarized.
RfS X, "Conflicting Armory", explains how armorial conflict in
the SCA is based on an attempt to emulate period armorial
practices:

A piece of armory may not be too similar to other pieces of
armory, as is required by General Principle 3a of these rules.
Period armory frequently distinguished between immediate
relatives, like a father and his son, by making a single change
to the arms in a process called "cadency". The changes made in
such circumstances can be considered the smallest change that
period heralds would recognize. This section defines ways in
which submitted armory must be changed to be sufficiently
different from protected armory.

It is just as easy - or as difficult - to create a
table summarizing the grammar of a language, as it is to create a
table summarizing period armorial practices for difference. In
both natural language and in armory, there are many generally
applicable rules, but also a large number of specific
exceptions.

We would like to address one specific misconception which,
according to some commenters, derived from an overgeneralization
of a conflict table. One conflict table concerning crosses had a
category of "cross throughout" (with sub-categories for the
particular types of cross throughout, such as equal-armed
Celtic quarter-pierced.) As a result of the cursory scan of
this category, which generally gave a CD between the "throughout"
cross and the cross with which it was compared, more than one
College of Arms member incorrectly generalized that all
crosses throughout were a CD from all crosses which were
not throughout. The precedents listed in the LoAR table
explicitly denied that generalization, but one had to look at the
cited precedents to see that information. One example of a
precedent referenced by the conflict table that denied this
generalization:

[A Celtic cross vs. a Celtic cross equal-armed, quarterly
pierced and throughout] There is no heraldic difference for the
charge being throughout, or not. However, there's a CD ... for
the quarter-piercing, which is visually equivalent to adding a
tertiary delf. (Toirrdelbach Ua Mel Doraid, October, 1992, pg.
16)

A relatively recent LoAR also addressed this issue.
Clarifying comments have been inserted into the quote in square
brackets:

While we give a CD for a standard cross throughout [the
ordinary] versus a cross couped, for most crosses (such as
crosses fleury) we do not give such difference for couped
[not-throughout] versus throughout. (LoAR February 2002).

[Device change
for Consort] This submission has insufficient support from
the populace of the Kingdom to be accepted. It is necessary for a
kingdom to show support, not merely indifference, for changing
armory that is as important as the consort's arms. The total
polling, according to the LoI, had 93 respondents with 74 of the
respondents in favor of the change. According to the S.C.A.
Registry, on April 1, 2003, the Kingdom of Atlantia had 1254
sustaining members, 166 associate members, and 663 family
members, for a total of 2083 members. This means that the total
polling of 93 people reflected less than 5 percent of the
Atlantian membership, with the positive responses being even less
than that. We do understand that in any polling, many members
will choose not to respond to the polling. Even taking that fact
into account, the support shown here is insufficient to support
the change in the armory. [Atlantia, Kingdom of, 04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
From Laurel: Devices for Consorts and Royal Heirs

This month we were called upon to reflect on the SCA's policy of
registering devices for a consort (either for a kingdom or a
princpality), or for royal heirs apparent (also for a kingdom or
principality). We have no evidence of a real-world consort having
arms that differed from her husband's (except for marshalling).
We likewise have no evidence of an heir apparent having arms that
were not a differenced version of the arms of their parent,
except for marshalling, and for fiefs that the heir apparent
might have had (such as the Dauphiné, ruled by the dauphin, the
heir to the French throne).

The practice of registering devices for the consort and heirs is
falling out of favor in the SCA in general. Some of the newer
kingdoms have not registered devices for their consorts and their
heirs. We applaud the trend to a more period practice with
regards to arms, or lack of separate armory for the consort and
heirs.

Because the SCA device is parallel to real-world practices for
arms, the SCA shall no longer register devices for consorts or
for heirs to a kingdom or principality after July 2004.

Under this decision, consorts in kingdoms or principalities
without consort's arms may use the undifferenced kingdom arms,
and kingdoms may elect to allow both heirs to the throne to
display the kingdom arms differenced by a label or other standard
mark of cadency. This matches some period armorial display for
royal arms.

Kingdoms and principalites that currently have arms registered
for the consort or heirs may submit changes to the registered
armory via the application of the grandfather clause. We shall
require a poll of the populace showing support for changes to the
armory. Note that this poll has not previously been explicitly
required for the armory of the heirs apparent, but it seems
appropriate to require such a poll, which is already required for
consorts.

Kingdoms and principalities that currently have arms registered
for the consort or heirs are encouraged to consider following
period practice and to discontinue the use of the armory.
[12/2003,
CL]

ADMINISTRATIVE
-- Generic Identifiers

From Pelican: What is a Generic
Identifier?

A submission this month raised the issue of generic identifiers
again. Given the confusion that exists regarding what is and is
not a generic identifier, as well as how generic identifiers are
used, we are providing a clarification of this issue.

Generic identifiers are descriptions that may be associated with
registered items (mainly badges) to identify the use of that
item. Unlike registered names (award names, order names, guild
names, household names, et cetera), generic identifiers are not
registered as an independent item and are not protected from
conflict. This does not mean that the group may not use this
identifier, but simply that we will not limit the usage of that
identifier to a single group.

Names that fall into the generic identifier category are names
that would reasonably be used by more than one branch for common
functions of the branch. All kingdoms can have a
university. All baronies can have a baronial guard.
All groups can have an equestrian guild.

Adding the name of the branch to the description does not affect
generic identifiers (because branch identifiers are transparent
for conflict). As an example, Outlands Equestrian Guild
falls into the generic category because the only thing that would
differentiate it from Equestrian Guild of Calontir are the
branch identifiers Outlands and of Calontir.

Some generic identifiers referring to kingdom uses are:

King's battle flag, Ensign, Flag, War banner, populace badge

Some generic identifiers referring to awards or
specific positions are:

Atlantian Pages Academy, University of Drachenwald, University
of the East Kingdom

Some generic identifiers referring to offices are:

Office of the Chatelaine, Ministry of Children, Office of the
Minister of Children, Kingdom Chirurgeon, Chronicler,
Chronicler's Office, Hospitaller, Office of the Lists

Descriptions such as these are generic and may be
used to identify the purpose of a registered item, but are not
registerable on their own. They are included in the Ordinary and
Armorial as references, rather than as registered items. In this
manner, they convey the use of the item with which they are
associated, but they are not protected against conflict.
[12/2002,
CL]
The LoAR designated the badge for use by a particular named
academy and stated "Atlantia is not attempting to register the
Academy Name at this time, merely wishing to associate the badge
with that group." Only registered items (such as order names and
household names) and generic identifiers may be associated with
badges. As the (particularly named) academy is neither a
registered item nor a generic identifier, it must be removed from
the submission. One recent ruling affirming this long-standing
administrative procedure is in the February 2002 LoAR: "The
submission was designated as being for the Tinkerer's
Guild. However, this is not a generic designation. A tinker
is a period artisan, and thus a Tinker's Guild would be a
generic designation (like a Blacksmith's Guild) which
could be applied to a badge. However, tinkerer does not
seem to be a period occupation. Since the branch does not have
the name Tinkerer's Guild registered to them, the
designation has been removed."

The Cover Letter to the December 2002 LoAR has a long discussion
of what sort of identifiers are generic. The summary definition
states, "Names that fall into the generic identifier category are
names that would reasonably be used by more than one branch for
common functions of the branch. All kingdoms can have a
university. All baronies can have a baronial guard.
All groups can have an equestrian guild." [Atlantia,
Kingdom of, 07/2003,
A-Atlantia]

ADMINISTRATIVE --
Permission to Conflict

Gillian's arms conflict with Iamys
Huet's, found later in this LoAR. Gillian is an SCA member, and
therefore, her submission takes precedence and may be registered
without a letter of permission from Iamys. She is unlikely to be
surprised by these events, as she has provided a letter of
permission to conflict to Iamys. [Gillian Kylpatrick,
11/2001,
A-Caid]
Unfortunately, the letter of permission provided is not valid.
According to the Administrative Handbook, section IV.C.3, a
written statement of permission must be included, signed by the
owner of the conflicting item with both Society Name and name
used outside the Society. The letter provided was not signed.
Note that a signature is not a computer generated line of
typescript giving the name of the submitter, it is a handwritten
signature or a copy thereof. Perhaps in the future we might wish
to consider email headers, or electronic signatures, as valid
signatures. However, it is worth noting that neither of these
were present in this letter of permission either. [Madallaine
Isabeau de Cat, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[regarding Eleanor Leonard's permission to conflict] Over
the years, there have been many requests for permission to
conflict made of and given by Eleanor. In 1991, Eleanor Leonard
presented the College of Arms with a blanket letter of permission
to conflict reserving only the specific ways she intended to use
the badge, so that she would not continue to be bothered by
requests for permission to conflict.

In the September 1991 LoAR Cover Letter, the relevant portion of
the letter was published with a call for discussion. In the
January 1992 Cover Letter, Da'ud ibn Auda, then Laurel, did not
accept it, giving reasons for not "customizing protection" that
included not wanting to complicate the Administrative Handbook,
the Armorial, and the lives of SCA heralds. It is true that there
would be problems with registering any arbitrary conditions a
submitter might impose. However, one simple blanket permission
was registered in 1997. The recent edition of the Administrative
Handbook now provides for two simple types of blanket letters of
permission in III.C.4, "Blanket Permission to Conflict", and
Appendix D has a template "Blanket Permission to Conflict".
Furthermore, even a more complicated blanket permission may be
worth accepting. We will consider such exceptional letters on a
case-by-case basis, balancing the costs of implementations of
letters versus the benefits to submitters. ...

Therefore, there is permission to conflict for any armory with a
primary charge that is not solidly one of the seven major
tinctures (argent, Or, azure, gules, purpure, sable, and vert).
As well, there is permission to conflict for any fielded armory
(not fieldless) where the field is not solidly one of those seven
major tinctures. [01/2002,
CL][Ed.: See the Cover Letter for the complete
discussion]
[Azure chapé ployé, a tulip slipped and leaved Or]
Conflict with Katheline van Weye, Quarterly vert and purpure,
a tulip slipped and leaved Or. The submitter has a letter of
permission to conflict from Katheline that explicitly pertained
to her previous submission, Azure, a tulip slipped and leaved
Or. However, no letter of permission to conflict has been
received for this submission. As can be seen in Appendix D of the
Administrative Handbook, the standard form letter for a letter of
permission to conflict (which was followed in Katheline's letter)
only specifically gives permission to conflict between two stated
blazons: that of the registered item and that of the submission
in progress. The old letter of permission to conflict, as stated,
does not pertain to this new submission. It is an unfortunate
inconvenience, to be sure, but it does allow precision in
granting permission. Note that more general letters of permission
to conflict are acceptable if stated clearly and unequivocably.
[Sondra van Schiedam, 09/2002,
R-Calontir]
The device is still in conflict with the armory cited in the
previous return, that of Degary Golafre of Pembroke ... The
submitter has provided Laurel with emails from Degary's wife,
issued from Degary's email account, indicating willingness to
provide permission to conflict. However, the administrative
handbook requires that "If permission to conflict has been
granted, a written statement of permission must be included,
signed by the owner of the conflicting item with both Society
Name and name used outside the Society." The emails did not
include a signature, and therefore are not valid letters of
permission to conflict. A scan of a full letter of permission to
conflict (including signature along with the text of the letter)
would be acceptable, but unsigned text email is not.

The submitter, in her long and unfortunately arduous submissions
history, has amassed letters of permission to conflict ... Some
of these letters of permission to conflict are by no means
recent: the one which bears a date is dated November 27, 1995,
and some of the others may be older. The College should note that
the administrative handbook does not mandate an "expiration date"
for letters of permission to conflict, nor does a letter of
permission to conflict cease to be valid if a submission is
returned at Laurel. Yet permission to conflict may be rescinded
by the owner of the conflicting armory at any time before the
submission is registered. Any person wishing to rescind
permission to conflict for a submission which has not yet been
registered must write to Laurel and the submitting kingdom with
an explicit letter to rescind any previously written letter of
permission to conflict. [Elina of Beckenham, 09/2002,
R-West]
It has been requested that the long-standing SCA tradition of
assuming that a submitter automatically grants himself permission
to conflict should finally be enshrined, in writing, in these
hallowed LoARs. Therefore, let it be explicitly known that a
submitter is assumed to give himself permission to conflict with
all names and armory registered to him individually or jointly.
[Timothy of Glastinbury, 11/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[on a bordure ... the words "In Diece von Albrecht von
Halstern"] The text on the bordure was intended to mean "in
service to Albrecht von Halstern." ... In addition, the College
had concerns about the fact that this armory contains text using
another SCA member's registered name (Albrecht von Halstern)
without permission from that SCA member. Note that RfS I.3 states
(emphasis added) "No name or armory will be registered which
claims for the submitter powers, status, or relationships
that do not exist." We decline to rule on this issue at this
time, as we would like to see more commentary from the College on
this topic. However, we strongly suggest that any submitter whose
armory contains text that is a registered SCA name should obtain
a letter of permission from the referenced person or branch.
[Beowulf fitz Malcolm, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
The badge conflicts with a badge of Isabel the Mad ... The
submitter included a copy of e-mail from Isabel the Mad, which
gave permission to conflict, but the e-mail was not signed with
an actual signature. The Administrative Handbook section IV.C.3
requires a signature to a letter of permission to conflict:

Permission to Conflict - If permission to conflict has been
granted, a written statement of permission must be included,
signed by the owner of the conflicting item with both Society
Name and name used outside the Society. (See Appendix D for a
standard form for granting permission to conflict.)

In this month of "spoofed" e-mails courtesy of the
computer virus de jour (where the apparent sender of the e-mail
was not in fact the real sender of the e-mail) it seems
appropriate to reaffirm current precedent on this topic, as
stated in the LoAR of November 2001:

Unfortunately, the letter of permission provided is not valid.
According to the Administrative Handbook, section IV.C.3, a
written statement of permission must be included, signed by the
owner of the conflicting item with both Society Name and name
used outside the Society. The letter provided was not signed.
Note that a signature is not a computer generated line of
typescript giving the name of the submitter, it is a
handwritten signature or a copy thereof. Perhaps in the future
we might wish to consider e-mail headers, or electronic
signatures, as valid signatures. However, it is worth noting
that neither of these were present in this letter of permission
either.

The CoA Administrative Handbook, in defining limits on the number
of items that may be registered, specifically states that,
"Kingdoms, principalities, baronies, provinces, and equivalent
branches are subject to no limit on the number of items they may
register". (AH I.A) In the March 1986 LoAR, Baldwin Laurel
returned the five badges, identical save the color of the field,
submitted by the Barony of Westermark, saying:

No formal restriction is placed on the number of badges a
branch may be submit because it is assumed that branches may
have good and constructive reasons for more than one badge.
This is an abuse of the privilege. Please advise them to pick
one.

Since June 2002, we have been asked to consider
nineteen badges from Trimaris (not counting duplicate submissions
that were withdrawn by the kingdom). Of these nineteen badges,
ten were addressed in June and nine are being considered for
registration this month. The Letter of Intent did not explain the
intended purpose of any of these badges.

The large number of badges submitted in a short time has raised
concerns of abuse of the privilege of unlimited registrations
allowed for kingdoms. All the submissions have been for fieldless
badges using azure charges, most of nautical origin. On
conferring with the submitting kingdom, it appears that they have
been registering badges against future need.

The large number of undesignated badges submitted in such a short
time, especially when a number of the badges are intended for
future use, appears to be an attempt to "corner the market" on
azure nautical badges. We consider this to be an "abuse of the
privilege" of the unlimited number of registered items allowed by
the Administrative Handbook. We believe that badges should only
be registered for current or identified need. Therefore, the nine
badge submissions from Trimaris are being returned to allow
Trimaris to reconsider the need for the registration of these
badges at this time.

Laurel wishes to make it clear that, if the kingdom or any branch
"subject to no limit on the number of items they may register"
has a legitimate need for these badges, it should certainly be
able to register them without forcing the kingdom to provide a
designation - or worse, an unnecessary associated name
registration - to "explain" the need for the badges. Reference to
a generic identifier in an armory submission may assist Laurel
when considering significant numbers of submissions at a single
time. [11/2002,
CL]

We note that frogs in period heraldry are invariably found in the
tergiant posture. The SCA has registered frogs in other postures
as long as they maintained their identifiability. [Dauid Mac
an Ghoill, 09/2003,
R-Meridies]

ANNULET

[(Fieldless) Three thistles
conjoined in pall inverted bases to center proper within and
conjoined to an annulet Or] The annulet is drawn at the edge
of the circle of the form, so that at first glance it appears to
be a bordure. This sort of depiction should be avoided, as it
causes confusion. [Isabel du Lac d'Azur, 08/2001,
A-Atenveldt]
[three annulets interlaced one and two Or] A question was
raised about possible problems with use of the Ballantine's Ale
insignia. While we did not find the corporate web site, we did
find beer collectors' web sites showing many beer labels of
varying ages, and the Ballantine's Ale logo uses the annulets two
and one, not one and two. Because this is a simple geometric
logo, without any particular nuances of artwork that make these
rings an unmistakable allusion to the Ballantine's logo, the
inversion of the three rings design does not infringe on the
Ballantine's Ale insignia. [Roaring Wastes, Barony of the,
11/2001,
R-Middle]
[Gules, a fireball within an annulet Or] This does not
conflict with ... Gules, a horse rampant to sinister within an
annulet Or. The annulet functions here as a surrounding
secondary charge, like a bordure. This is therefore clear by RfS
X.2, as the type of the primary charges has substantially
changed, and this is simple armory for purposes of that rule ("no
more than two types of charge directly on the field and has no
overall charges.".). [Jehanne le feu du Christ, 06/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[six annulets interlaced in annulo] The submitter is a
knight and thus entitled to use a closed loop of chain. These
annulets interlaced in annulo resemble a chain closely enough
that they could only be registered to someone able to register
the reserved charge of a closed loop of chain. [Ibrahim
al-Dimashqi, 03/2003,
A-Artemisia]
[Quarterly azure and argent, an annulet sable] Conflict
with Conrad Breakring, Argent, an annulet fracted on the
dexter side sable. There is one CD for changing the field but
nothing for fracting the annulet. The LoAR of February 1999, p.
10, gave no difference between a serpent involved (a serpent
biting its tail so that its body is in a circle) and Conrad's
annulet fracted: "[Or, a serpent involved sable] This
conflicts with Conrad Breakring of Ascalon, Argent, an annulet
fracted on the dexter side sable., with one CD for the
difference in the fields." This default annulet should resemble
Conrad's fracted annulet even more strongly than the fracted
annulet resembles a snake involved. [Guðrøðr of Colanhomm,
11/2003,
R-Drachenwald]

ARCHITECTURE

There is no difference
between a tower and a lighthouse given the varying depictions of
towers and similar architecture in period, so there is only one
CD for adding the laurel wreaths. ... A lighthouse, like a
beacon, is correctly enflamed at the top only, according to the
Pictorial Dictionary. [Dun an Chalaidh, Shire of, 08/2001,
R-An Tir]
[a tower argent masoned sable] Architectural charges made
of stonework such as towers, castles and walls may be drawn
masoned as a matter of artist's license. Therefore, there is no
additional tincture difference for adding or removing masoning
for these types of charge. [Gemma Meen, 01/2002,
R-An Tir]
The turnpike, or turnstyle, in this submission would be the
defining registration of this charge in SCA heraldry. Defining
instances of charges require slightly higher standards of
documentation than registrations of previously registered
charges. This policy has been upheld consistently for over ten
years but one of the clearest statements of the policy is in the
LoAR of August 1995:

A registration of this submission would apparently be the
first, and therefore defining, instance of such a charge.
Especially in the case of charges not registered previously,
the College requires documentation that the charge (a) has been
used in period armory or (b) is compatible with similar charges
in period armory, and (c) has a standardized depiction which
would make reproducability [sic] from the blazon possible. We
need such documentation here.

This submission was accompanied by a single piece of
documentation from Parker's A Glossary of Terms used in
Heraldry. This book does not clearly date the charge as
having been used in period armory. The only date provided in
Parker is associated with the crest of Skipworth, but appears to
be the date of the founding of the baronetcy rather than the date
of the crest. We consulted Fairbairn's Crests, but that
volume did not help resolve the date of that particular crest. No
evidence was presented by the submitting kingdom, and none was
found by the College or Laurel staff, for use of a turnpike in
period heraldry.

If a turnpike is a period artifact, it would probably be
"compatible with similar charges in period armory" such as
portcullises and doors. However, no evidence was presented
describing a period turnpike. Nor was documentation presented
showing that a turnpike "has a standardized depiction which would
make reproducability [sic] from the blazon possible." The
submission must therefore be returned until such time as the
turnpike may be documented appropriately for a defining instance
of the charge. [Ian Cradoc, 05/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[an arch top] The SCA has not registered an arch
top before, although it has registered an arch. The
arch top in this submission is the semicircular portion of
an arch only, without any columns on the sides.

In some cases, we routinely create a new charge out of a portion
of a standard heraldic charge without requiring specific
documentation for that portion of a charge being used as an
independent charge in period. It was a standard period heraldic
practice to create demi-beasts and beast's heads
from a beast. In keeping with this real-world practice, if
a particular beast or monster is a documented heraldic charge, we
routinely allow the registration of a demi-beast/monster or a
beast's/monster's head as long as the charge's identifiability is
preserved. For example, a demi-enfield preserves its
identifiability as a portion of an enfield, as it includes the
enfield's fox's head, eagle's forelegs and greyhound's torso.
However, an enfield's head does not preserve its
identifiability, as it would be identical to a fox's head.
We thus would not register an enfield's head, although we
could register a fox's head.

In the case of the arch top, it does not appear to be a
standard period heraldic practice to create an arch top
from an arch, any more than it is a standard period
practice to create a tower top from a tower. The
College felt that the identifiability of the arch top was
not preserved when it is removed from the rest of the arch, and
that this charge violated RfS VII.7.a, which states in pertinent
part, "Any charge, ... must be identifiable, in and of itself,
without labels or excessive explanation. Elements not used in
period armory may be defined and accepted for Society use if they
are readily distinguishable from elements that are already in
use." The College felt that the arch top was not
"identifiable, in and of itself." Moreover, if the arch top is an
"[element] not used in period armory", it is not "readily
distinguishable from elements that are already in use", as it
could be confused with a bridge.

If documentation were provided for an arch top in period
heraldry, then the charge could be registered. The concerns about
the identifiability of this "[element] not used in period armory"
would be removed if documentation were presented showing that an
arch top, in this depiction, was a period charge. However,
no such documentation has been provided with this submission, or
by the College.

Precedent has consistently held that the first submission of a
charge to the College should be accompanied by documentation:
"This is being returned for lack of documentation. We can find no
indication that a 'muffin cap' has ever been registered before in
the SCA. As a consequence, this would be the defining instance of
the charge. Previous Laurel Sovereigns of Arms have held new
charges to the same standard of documentation and have return
them for lacking it, c.f. a winch (Bruce Draconarius of
Mistholme, LoAR 9/92, p. 42), a Mongol helm (Bruce Draconarius of
Mistholme, LoAR 12/92, p. 15), a zalktis (Bruce Draconarius of
Mistholme, LoAR 1/93, p. 28) and a Viking tent arch (Da'ud ibn
Auda, LoAR 5/94, p. 17)" (LoAR August 1997, p. 16). [Odysseus
Titinius Maximus, 12/2003,
R-Calontir]
[a house] This is the first SCA registration of a house.
It is shaped like a horizontal billet with a hip roof and a
slightly sagging ridge beam. The door is arch-topped and is in
the center of the fesswise billet, and there are two small
arch-topped windows over the door, one to either side.

The depiction of the house is taken from Von Volborth's
Heraldry, Customs, Rules and Styles, p. 54. Von Volborth
does modern redrawings but has a good idea of period
sensibilities. The illustration says that the arms are of the
town of Dorfen, in Bavaria, and are derived from 14th C
seals.

Houses are found, if infrequently, in period armory. In addition
to the 14th C coat mentioned by Von Volborth, the Dictionary
of British Arms gives a few examples of armory depicting a
"house" or "hall." Unfortunately, no evidence was either
presented or found showing a period depiction of a house as used
in heraldry.

The LoAR of May 1998 indicates that the usual SCA procedures for
the first registration of a charge are relaxed for architectural
charges. While ordinarily a new charge documented solely from a
modern redrawing (such as Von Volborth's) would not be
registerable, this house meets the criteria set forth in the May
1998 LoAR for first registrations of architectural
charges. This charge is clearly recognizable as some sort of a
house, and houses were period charges. This is thus analogous to
the May 1998 registration of a domed mosque of one minaret
which stated:

A question of reproducibility was raised in commentary in
regards to this submission. Of particular relevance to this
case are period heraldic depictions of buildings. There are,
particularly in Continental heraldry, many coats incorporating
everything from individual buildings up to entire cities. Even
a casual examination of multiple sources will show that there
was little regularity in depiction. The blazon for such charges
is characteristically vague: "a church" or "a city". Clearly
any variation in depiction is a matter of artistry, not
heraldry.

In this case, anyone viewing the emblazon will recognize the
charge as a mosque. A competent heraldic artist may not produce
this particular mosque, but will presumably produce a drawing
which, again, the viewers will recognize. This situation is no
different from period heraldic depictions of churches.

This is a change to our normal policy of having the first
registration of a charge not documented as having been used in
period heraldry be the defining example of the charge. In this
specific case, since the period usage of buildings varied so
widely, we are comfortable with not having a defining example.

[Brian of Leichester and Katryna Robyn,
03/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Argent, an arched wooden double door inset into a stone
archway proper] The Pictorial Dictionary states that
"The door... may be inset into an arch or wall." This submission
insets the door into a stone archway proper. Unfortunately the
grey of stone proper (as defined in the SCA Glossary of terms)
classes as a metal, and has insufficient contrast with the
underlying argent field.

Note that the stone surrounding the door is, as drawn in this
submission, an intermediate grey which has insufficient contrast
with either argent or sable. This adds additional problems to the
depiction, in that the stone proper is not drawn as a correct
depiction of stone proper (which would class as a metal) but is
not dark enough to be considered an artistic variant of sable.
[Sudentorre, Canton of, 03/2004,
R-Atlantia]

[Azure, in chief three cups inverted in
chevron Or and in base three plates in chevron] The
arrangement of the charges does not match any period pattern.
However, this is only one weirdness and is thus registerable.
[Ælfgar Greggor of Vulpine Reach, 08/2001,
A-Merides]
[Or, five birds volant two one and two sable] This device
conflicts with ... Or, six ravens close sable. ... There
is no CD for arrangement, since six charges cannot be two one and
two, and five charges cannot be arranged three two and one.
[Robert of Gresewode, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[Argent goutty de sang, a laurel wreath vert] The device
is clear of conflict with the Barony of Coeur d'Ennui, Argent,
a laurel wreath vert within eight boars' heads couped in annulo
gules. There is one CD for the type of secondary charges and
another for arrangement. This is clearly a group of strewn
charges rather than charges in annulo, as can be seen from the
gouttes in the middle of the laurel wreath. [Campofiamme,
Stronghold of, 10/2001,
A-Drachenwald]
[three fleurs-de-lys vs. three ash leaves stems to center]
When a group of charges has a visually obvious palewise posture,
and a visually obvious top and bottom, there can be a CD between
three palewise charges and three charges which are radially
disposed. [Ysabel la Serena de Lille, 11/2001,
A-Artemisia]
[in chief three lozenges] The original blazon read, in
latter part, ... and in chief three lozenges in fess Or.
Three items in chief will also be in fess by default. We do find
armory in the SCA with three items in chief, arranged one and
two, but this arrangement should always be blazoned. [John de
Lochabre, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[Purpure, a tower within five compass stars in annulo Or]
Conflict with a badge of Roland O'Donnell, Purpure, a tower
within an orle of lions rampant Or. There is a CD for the
change in type of secondary charges. There is normally a CD for
changing the arrangement of a group of unnumbered (and thus
"many") charges from in orle to in annulo, even on
a round badge form. However, Roland's emblazon shows that there
are only seven lions in his group of unnumbered charges. Because
there are relatively few charges in both these secondary charge
groups, the difference in arrangement is much less obvious than
when there are eight or more charges in each group. Most of the
charges in the two groups are in the same place on the field, and
would likely to be in the same place on the field on any shape of
escutcheon. Therefore, there is no difference for the change in
arrangement, and nothing for the change in number from five to
seven charges by RfS X.4.f. [Agripina Argyra, 01/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[Vert, in pale a stag courant inverted and a stag courant to
sinister argent] These stags were originally blazoned as
courant in annulo widdershins, legs outward, argent.
However, these are not clearly in annulo as they are not
embowed enough to make a circle. Such a posture may not be
possible for stags with their legs outwards, since in order to
truly make a circle, the stags would need to be drawn with
extremely arched backs. Such a depiction is likely non-period
style. In any case, animals in annulo are expected to have their
legs inwards and their identifiability and period style are
hampered by this posture.

We have precedent against animals which are almost, but not
really, in annulo:

[A coney courant and another courant contourny inverted
conjoined at the paws argent] The rabbits were originally
blazoned as conjoined in annulo. However, the beasts were not
drawn in annulo, where the two animals are embowed, but were
drawn as courant and courant inverted. By precedent we do not
register inverted animals unless they are part of an
arrangement in annulo. (LoAR October 2000)

This is clear of conflict with ... Vert, two
stags combattant argent. There is one CD for the difference
in arrangement between in fess (as with two animals
combattant) and in pale. There is also a CD for changing
the posture, for the change between rampant/rampant to sinister
and courant inverted/courant to sinister. [Katrín
Þorfinssdóttir, 02/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Gules, in dexter chief, sinister chief, and base a bear
rampant Or, and in chief, dexter base and sinister base a tree
argent] No documentation was presented, and none was found,
for this arrangement of two types of charge on a plain field. The
arrangement is very difficult to blazon, hence the laborious
blazon above. Some less explicit blazons were suggested, but none
of them would unambiguously recreate this emblazon. The
combination of the lack of documentation and difficulty of blazon
indicates that this design is too far from period style to be
accepted.

While we were unable to find this arrangement of two types of
charge on a plain field, it may be found on a field divided
party of six pieces. See, for example, a grant of arms
c.1558, Party of six azure and Or, three fountains and three
lion's heads erased gules (Gwynn-Jones, The Art of
Heraldry, p. 103). This blazon for the 1558 coat is patterned
on the blazon for Theodoric of Salt Keep, Party of six pieces
per fess nebuly gules and ermine, three anvils argent and three
falcons close sable. In these cases, the divided field causes
the charges to fall into the desired arrangement by default,
simplifying the blazon. [Sofia Chiudskaia Smolianina,
05/2002,
R-Middle]
[Per pale vert and sable, six gouttes three two and one
argent] It is not clear whether the default for six objects
on a per pale field should be three two and one (as on a
plain field) or two two and two (so the charges are placed
on opposite sides of the line of division.) We have thus blazoned
the arrangement of the gouttes explicitly. [Malcolm
Makalestyr, 07/2002,
A-Outlands]
Note that the SCA default for six objects on a plain field is
three two and one. This matches the default for six
objects on a plain field in most of the times and places in which
heraldry is found before 1600. [Edward of Hartwell,
09/2002,
A-Caid]
[in base three millrinds two and one] The millrinds'
arrangement was not originally explicitly blazoned on the LoI,
but it was blazoned on the form. On a shield shape three charges
in base will be two and one by default, but this is not
necessarily the case on other shapes, such as a rectangular
banner. Since the submitter explicitly blazoned the charges in
base as two and one, we have reinstated this term. If the
submitter would prefer to have this left as a matter of artist's
licence, she may request a reblazon. [Áine Sindradóttir,
10/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Azure, an orle of oak leaves argent] This does not
conflict with Catterina da Calabria, Azure, six leaves
argent. There is one CD for changing the type of leaf. There
is a second CD for changing the arrangement from three two and
one to in orle. While six charges three two and one
could conceivably be misdrawn to leave a clear open space in the
center, that is not the case with Catterina's emblazon, so there
is no visual conflict problem between the two pieces of armory.
[Jake de Twelfoaks,10/2002,
A-East]
We have blazoned the ermine spots in base as a bar of ermine
spots, parallel to armory using arrangements of unnumbered
charges such as an orle of martlets. "Unnumbered" charges,
such as the charges in an orle of martlets, are too many to
explicitly enumerate: generally eight or more charges.

Orles of unnumbered charges are found in period armory, but no
documentation has been provided for barrulets abased of
unnumbered charges (or other ordinaries abased of unnumbered
charges). This arrangement is a step from period practice. The
fact that the unnumbered charges in question are ermine spots is
a second step from period practice. While ermine spots are
reasonable charges when taken in small numbers, unnumbered ermine
spots are indicative of an ermined fur rather than a group of
charges. This combination is too many steps from period practice
to be acceptable. This design could alternately be blazoned with
a counter-ermine bar on a sable field, but that would contravene
the rules of contrast, further indicating that this design is not
period style. [Iuliana inghean Domhnaill, 10/2002,
R-East]
[three fleurs-de-lys in pall bases to center] These
charges were originally blazoned in annulo, but three
charges, two and one, bases to center, are generally blazoned
in pall bases to center. A number of commenters questioned
whether these charges could allowably be blazoned in pall
because the angle of the fleurs-de-lys was not the standard angle
for such an arrangement. The problem with the angle of the
fleurs-de-lys in the letter of intent is due to the way that the
mini-emblazon was cut-and-pasted, or scanned, into the letter of
intent. On the full sized form, the three fleurs-de-lys are
oriented as one would expect for three charges in pall bases to
center. [Atenveldt, Kingdom of, 12/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Per bend sinister azure and sable, three crosses potent two
and one argent] The three crosses are blazoned explicitly as
two and one because, on a per bend sinister field, three charges
default to having two in the dexter chief portion of the field
and one in the sinister base portion. [Marmaduc de
Thystelesworthe, 01/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[Argent, two double-bitted battleaxes and a phoenix azure]
We have reblazoned the device to show that it consists of a group
of equally-sized primary charges arranged two and one. There were
some questions in the commentary about the way in which the
charges were arranged. Because all three charges are longer
vertically than horizontally, it is a reasonable artistic choice
to draw them so that the bottom part of the chiefmost charges is
alongside the top part of the basemost charge. [Simon von
Beckum, 01/2003,
A-East]
[three dolphins embowed-counterembowed in annulo] The
College had some concerns about whether the dolphins could
reasonably be blazoned in annulo. The one in dexter chief
is haurient to sinister, that in sinister chief is urinant and
the one in base is fesswise. We encourage the submitter, on
resubmission, to draw these charges so that they are more clearly
in annulo, or to posture them so that they may be blazoned
clearly. [James of Essex, 01/2003,
R-Trimaris] [Ed.: Returned for conflict.]
[Per bend argent and sable, a hound rampant and a hound
rampant contourny counterchanged] This does not conflict with
Matthew de Wolfe, Per bend sinister embattled argent and
sable, in bend two wolves rampant combattant counterchanged.
To understand why there is no conflict, it is helpful to remove
all blazon shortcuts and blazon each of these pieces of armory
explicitly. Note that there are two important common blazon
shortcuts which are found in both Matheus' and Matthew's current
blazons. The first blazon shortcut is that two charges on a
divided field are placed on opposite sides of a line of division
by default. The other blazon shortcut is the use of the word
counterchanged rather than using the tinctures
argent and sable.

Thus, when we remove blazon shortcuts, Matheus' arms may be
blazoned Per bend argent and sable, in sinister chief a hound
rampant sable and in dexter base a hound rampant to sinister
argent. Matthew's arms may be blazoned Per bend sinister
embattled argent and sable, in dexter chief a wolf rampant to
sinister sable and in sinister base a wolf rampant
argent.

Precedent has consistently held that "you cannot 'blazon your way
out of' a conflict" (stated succinctly in this quote from the
LoAR of February 2000, which upheld years of previous precedent).
Thus, we must compare these two pieces of armory using the
"explicit" blazons. There is one CD for changing the field. There
is no difference for changing the type of canine from wolf to
hound.

The charges may not lie on a portion of the field with which they
have no contrast. Matheus' charges could not be arranged like
Matthew's (with the sable charge in dexter chief and the
argent charge in sinister base) on a per bend argent
and sable field, because each charge would have no contrast
with half of the field on which it lies. The charges must change
their arrangement. Because this change in arrangement is "caused
by other changes to the design" (namely, the changes to the
field) it is not worth difference per RfS X.4.g for arrangement
changes. (This is often known as a "forced" arrangement change or
"forced" position change.)

The second CD comes from the change of posture. Each canine is
facing in the opposite direction from the corresponding canine in
the other coat. This posture change is a CD by RfS X.4.h.

By this analysis we are expressly overturning the precedent set
in January 1994 that stated in pertinent part:

[Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two
<charges> counterchanged vs. Huffam, Per bend sable and
argent, two <charges> counterchanged ] Because the
charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed
anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a
consequence, the change in position of the <charges>
cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division
(though in Huffam they are in the expected position, one on
either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for
position on the field

By this precedent, the use of the word
counterchanged would remove a conflict which would apply
if the tinctures of the charges were explicitly sable and
argent, which is contrary to long-standing SCA policy.
[Matheus of Coppertree, 02/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[in pale three labels couped] The armory depicts all three
labels in the top two-thirds of the escutcheon. These labels are
therefore not in the in pale arrangement (which would
distribute them equally across the shield). However, the labels
cannot be blazoned in chief, because that would place the
labels considerably higher on the field. The blazon term
enhanced only applies when there is a standard position on
the field for the charge (from which the charge has been moved
towards chief). There is no standard position on the field for
three labels, so enhanced is not meaningful in this
context. Thus, this device is not blazonable as drawn. At this
time, it appears that the armory would be acceptable if the three
labels were correctly drawn in pale, as indicated in the
blazon.

There was a question about whether it is acceptable to have
multiple labels in a piece of armory. This is not a common period
design but al-Jamal provided a number of period or near-period
examples from various sources. [Valentino da Siena,
03/2003,
R-An Tir]
[a chevron between three towers argent and a fleur-de-lys]
The three towers would default, given this blazon, to lie in
chief. However, they are arranged somewhere between in
chief and one and two. This arrangement is not
blazonable and thus is not acceptable by RfS VII.7.b.
[Julienne de La Rochelle, 04/2003,
R-East]
[five <charges> in saltire vs. four <charges> in
pall] There is a CD for changing the arrangement of the
charges. It is possible to arrange five charges in pall by
arranging them two, one, one, and one. Therefore, the change in
arrangement of the charges from in pall to in
saltire "is not caused by other changes to the design" and
thus is worth difference under RfS X.4.g. [Jordan
Catharne, 05/2003,
A-An Tir]
The triangle inverted voided ployé fleury at the points
azure may have been considered a single charge in German
armory. However, this single charge is not heraldically distinct
from three fleurs-de-lys conjoined in pall azure. We do
not give difference between three charges and three conjoined
charges when both groups of charges are in in the same
orientation and arrangement. This is noted in the following
precedent, which specifically treats of charges in annulo: "There
is no difference between charges in annulo and charges in annulo
which are also conjoined, although the conjoining must be
blazoned when present" (LoAR January 2002).

As a result, this only has one CD from a badge of Atenveldt
(registered in December 2002), Or, three fleurs-de-lys in pall
bases to center azure. There is one CD for fieldlessness but
nothing for conjoining the fleurs-de-lys. [Sonnet Manon,
08/2003,
R-An Tir]
We have received the occasional comment asking whether the
charges in an orle of [charges] are conjoined by default.
They are not. By default an orle of [charges] is an
unnumbered group of charges (generally, eight or more charges)
that are arranged in orle. Each individual charge is in its
default posture unless otherwise blazoned. The arms of the
Valence family (sometime earls of Pembroke) are, perhaps, the
best-known example of this sort of design in real-world armory.
Their arms are protected as important non-SCA arms as Barruly
argent and azure, an orle of martlets gules.

In a charge group blazoned as An orle of [charges] in
orle, the charges are arranged in orle and the
postures of the charges tilt so that they follow each other.
Thus, an orle of fish naiant would all be in the default
naiant (fesswise) posture, but an orle of fish naiant in
orle swim head to tail. [Olivia de Calais, 09/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[Per chevron vert and per pale Or and gules, a chevron
dovetailed on the upper edge argent between three compass stars
Or and a fleur-de-lys per pale gules and Or] There were some
questions in the commentary about whether it was necessary to
explicitly blazon the arrangement of the charges on the top half
of the field. Note that charges on the top half of a field
divided in a roughly horizontal fashion (per fess or per chevron)
will have the charges in a horizontal row in chief by default.
[Oriana Luisa della Francesca, 09/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[Argent chapé azure, three goblets two and one gules] It
is not clear what the default arrangement for three charges on a
chapé field should be. The usual default on a plain field (two
and one) doesn't fit well on a chapé field, and thus seems an
unlikely default for that field. We have thus blazoned the
arrangement explicitly. [Waldemar Stanislaw of White
Mountain, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]
[Or, in pale two talbots courant contourny gules] In
period armory, one would usually expect two long horizontal
charges on a plain field to be in pale. However, the SCA does not
have a default arrangement for two charges on a plain field.
Armory using two charges on a plain field is so uncommon in both
SCA and real-world heraldry that it is best to blazon the
arrangement of such charges explicitly rather than define default
arrangements. We have therefore explicitly blazoned these talbots
as in pale. [Aster Peyton, 10/2003,
A-An Tir]
[Or, two foxes counter-salient in saltire purpure] His
previous blazon, Or, two foxes countersalient purpure, did
not clearly indicate that the foxes were in saltire. Although the
most common illustrations of two animals counter-salient show
animals which are counter-salient in saltire, research indicates
that animals counter-salient must face in opposite directions,
but are not in saltire by default. In addition, all the other SCA
blazons using counter-salient for this arrangement blazon the
animals explicitly in saltire. [Alfred of Warwick,
10/2003,
A-Middle]
[Or, semy of mullets of five greater and five lesser points
sable] This also conflicts with ... Or, five mullets in
annulo sable... When one considers a group of as few as five
charges, there is no difference between the arrangements in
annulo and semy, because in annulo is about as
close as one can come to strewing five charges evenly on an
entire field. This is similar to the ruling in the LoAR of
September 2000, which ruled, "[semy of fraises Or] Conflict with
... Azure, six roses, two, two and two, Or. There is not a
CD ... for arrangement." [Timothy of Glastinbury, 10/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[in pale a scorpion Or and two swords inverted in saltire
argent] Conflict with ... Azure in pale a horse's head
erased Or and two swords inverted in saltire argent. There is
one CD for changing the field. There is not a CD for changing the
type of only the topmost charge in a group of three charges
arranged in this fashion on a plain field. There is a
special-case precedent allowing a CD for changing the type or
tincture of bottommost charge of a group of three charges
arranged two and one, but that precedent is specific to that
arrangement, and does not apply here. [David of Clayton,
10/2003,
R-Artemisia]
[Argent, two daggers in chevron sable each distilling
gouttes] The gouttes in this emblazon are too large to be
merely considered artistic license and omitted from the blazon,
and they cannot be blazoned in a manner that reproduces the
emblazon. This submission therefore violates RfS VII.7.b, which
states, "Elements must be reconstructible in a recognizable form
from a competent blazon."

The gouttes are not drawn in a fashion that one would expect
given the blazon on the Letter of Intent, which states that the
daggers are distilling the gouttes. One would expect such
distilled gouttes to be small gouttes which drip from the
point of the dagger and are placed close to the point of the
dagger. These gouttes are too far from the tips of the daggers to
be distilled from the daggers.

The arrangement of the gouttes could not otherwise clearly be
blazoned. To attempt to describe this emblazon: there are two
vertical columns of gouttes, each column of two gouttes each
(making a total of four gouttes). In each column, the top goutte
is about one-fourth of the field below the tip of the dagger, and
the lower goutte another one-fourth of the field below that. The
dexter column of gouttes is a bit higher on the field than the
sinister column. The group of four gouttes is not arranged in an
heraldic arrangement such as two and two or one two and
one. The gouttes are thus in an unblazonable arrangement.
[Bora Gan, 11/2003,
R-An Tir]
[three dragons each involved in annulo inverted] Each of
these dragons is inverted: on its back with its paws in the air.
"The College has judged inverted creatures to be unacceptable
style, barring documentation of this practice in period heraldry"
(LoAR of September 1993, p. 21). The College has not yet found,
or been presented with, documentation for animals in this
involved in annulo inverted posture. The device must
therefore be returned.

We note that the ruling in the October 2000 LoAR stating, "By
precedent we do not register inverted animals unless they are
part of an arrangement in annulo", does apply to the armorial
design found in this submission. This submission consists of
three dragons in an arrangement two and one, not an
arrangement in annulo. The precedent refers to an
arrangement in annulo without specifying the posture of the
animals in that arrangement. For example, Three dragons
courant in annulo would be in an arrangement where the three
courant dragons would be running in a circle, feet towards the
center of the shield. As a result, the bottommost dragon in the
group must perforce be inverted. The precedent makes clear that
such an arrangement in annulo is acceptable, even though
one of the animals in such an arrangement is inverted. [Avice
Greylyng, 11/2003,
R-East]
[seven roundels two three and two argent, the centermost
Or] There was much commentary regarding the style of the
device. The group of roundels is in a clearly blazonable (albeit
not standard) heraldic arrangement. While it is one step from
period style (a "weirdness") to tincture only one of these
roundels differently from the others in the group, it is not so
far from period style to be a bar to registration. Note the
following precedent from the LoAR of September 2000:

[an octofoil within eight octofoils in annulo] Size is
not the only thing that determines a primary charge. We were
unable to devise a way to describe arrangement of the charges
in a way that did not imply that they were a primary charge
surrounded by a secondary group. Such arrangements cannot use
the same type of charge. The problem could be solved by
arranging them in a diamond (1,2,3,2, and 1) or in a square
(3,3, and 3).

In this September 2000 precedent, it was made clear
that if the charges could be arranged so that they were clearly
all in the same charge group, the design would be registerable.
[Bull Pitte, Shire of, 03/2004,
A-Calontir]

ARRANGEMENT -- Conjoined

[two
Wake knots conjoined in pale] A Wake knot, as per the PicDic,
is fesswise by default. Two Wake knots in pale would be arranged
like these. However there is no guarantee that the loose ends
would tie up as neatly as in this badge. It is as likely that the
loose ends would stick out and the round parts would be
conjoined.

The fact that the loose ends do connect up with each other in an
unbroken interlace could imply that this is "knotwork". On the
other hand, the knots maintain their identifiability as Wake
knots, which are themselves a standard heraldic knot. The
conjunction may not be the only way to conjoin the knots, but it
is an acceptable way to do so.

A pertinent precedent on the topic is in the LoAR of November
1994, for the Middle Kingdom's Order of the Cavendish Knot,
[Fieldless] Four Cavendish knots conjoined in cross vert:

There was much commentary on the issue of whether the charge
runs afoul of our long-standing ban on knotwork; the consensus
here seems to be similar to that of several years ago when we
were considering three Wake knots conjoined in pall: "The
question is whether the conjunction of the knots diminishes
their identifiability to the point where they should not be
allowed. In this case, the answer seems to be 'no'. Note,
however, that this would not be the case were the knots not of
themselves clearly defined period heraldic charges, were the
knot itself complex or requiring modification in shape to
produce the conjunction (as would be the case with a Lacy knot)
or were the numbers so increased ... as to diminish the size
seriously." (Alisoun MacCoul of Elphane, LoAR of 26 November
1989, p. 9)

It should be noted, however, that this badge is probably
pushing right to the limits of the allowance; an increase of
number would probably begin to reduce the identifiability of
the separate knots.

This conjunction of knots is a weirdness, but as
there is only one such weirdness, it is registerable.
[Nottinghill Coill, Barony of, 08/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[Purpure, a chevron between three grape leaves inverted within
an orle Or] It is standard SCA practice for an ordinary
within an orle or double tressure to stop at the inside of the
surrounding charge, as per the reblazon of Rouland Carre's arms
in January 1991:

Rouland Carre. Device. Argent, on a bend cotised azure within
an orle gules, in chief a Latin cross argent.

The LoAR blazoned this as "cotised couped", which would
not have the bend throughout within the orle.

In the real world, both the "throughout" and the
"within and conjoined to" combinations of ordinaries and
orles/double tressures may be found, without a clear default.
David Lindsay of the Mount's 1542 roll of arms gives five
examples of ordinaries combined with double tressures flory
counterflory. There is support for both designs in this book:
with the ordinary throughout, and with the ordinary within and
conjoined to the double tressure flory counterflory. Both designs
are specifically found with chevrons. [Inigo Missaglia,
08/2001,
A-Caid] [Ed.: The emblazon has the chevron terminated at the
orle]
[Argent, a cat sejant erect guardant azure between two rose
branches in chevron inverted conjoined in base sable] This
submission was listed in the Letter of Intent as a device and
augmentation. However, this is a simple new device registration.
The original blazon referred to a wreath of roses around this
cat, but a wreath of roses is circular (or nearly so.) The
emblazon here shows rose branches, and we have therefore so
blazoned them.

The design of two rose branches in a "V" shape is close to many
SCA depictions of a rose wreath. Thus the only persons who may
use such a design without presumption are those who are entitled
to bear a rose wreath. The submitter is a countess and Lady of
the Rose and is thus entitled to such a wreath. [Judith
Maryse, 10/2001,
A-Trimaris]
[Azure, three crescents one and two horns to center Or]
Conflict with ... Sable, three crescents one and two conjoined
at the horns Or. There is one CD for changing the field.
There is not a CD between a given group of charges conjoined and
another group of charges in the same arrangement which are not
conjoined. [Selim ibn Murad, 12/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
[Five crescents conjoined in annulo horns outward argent]
This is clear of conflict with ... Purpure, six crescents in
annulo argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is
another CD for changing the posture of the group, since over half
the charges have changed their posture from palewise to some
other orientation. There is no difference between charges in
annulo and charges in annulo which are also conjoined, although
the conjoining must be blazoned when present. There is also no
difference between five and six charges, by RfS X.4.f. [Caid,
Kingdom of, 01/2002,
A-Caid]
[Four fleurs-de-lys conjoined in cross bases to center Or]
Conflict with Katlin von Kappel, Per saltire sable and gules,
four fleurs-de-lys bases to center Or. There is one CD for
fieldlessness. The four fleurs-de-lys in Katlin's device are
placed by default into the four sections of the per saltire
field, which arranges the fleurs-de-lys in cross. The two groups
of fleurs-de-lys are arranged identically except for the
conjoiniWe do not give difference for conjoining the charges,
although it is necessary to specify the conjoining in the blazon.
[Otelia d'Alsace, 08/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
Some commenters asked whether it was necessary to blazon the
saltire as "within and conjoined to" the orle. "It is standard
SCA practice for an ordinary within an orle or double tressure to
stop at the inside of the surrounding charge" (LoAR August 2001).
See that LoAR for further details of period practices for orles
combined with ordinaries. [Roesia de Blakehall, 11/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Three birds close conjoined in annulo sable] These birds
are conjoined in annulo. The only conjoining is where the beak of
each bird touches the tail of the bird in front of it. This
emblazon thus meets the objections stated in the previous return.
The outline of the group is somewhat more triangular than round,
because the birds have straight backs, but this is an acceptable
group of birds conjoined in annulo. [Bran Trefonin,
01/2003,
A-Atlantia]
We have received the occasional comment asking whether the
charges in an orle of [charges] are conjoined by default.
They are not. By default an orle of [charges] is an
unnumbered group of charges (generally, eight or more charges)
that are arranged in orle. Each individual charge is in its
default posture unless otherwise blazoned. The arms of the
Valence family (sometime earls of Pembroke) are, perhaps, the
best-known example of this sort of design in real-world armory.
Their arms are protected as important non-SCA arms as Barruly
argent and azure, an orle of martlets gules.

In a charge group blazoned as An orle of [charges] in
orle, the charges are arranged in orle and the
postures of the charges tilt so that they follow each other.
Thus, an orle of fish naiant would all be in the default
naiant (fesswise) posture, but an orle of fish naiant in
orle swim head to tail. [Olivia de Calais, 09/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[Quarterly gules and azure, in bend sinister a Danish axe
sustained by a bear rampant contourny argent] This is clear
of conflict with the Barony of Bjornsborg, ...(Fieldless) A
bear statant erect reguardant contourny supporting a berdiche
blade to sinister argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness.
There is another CD for arrangement: the Bjornsborg bear and its
sustained axe are in the default arrangment for a statant erect
beast sustaining a polearm (in fess), while the charges in this
submission are in bend sinister. [Leifr Vagnsson, 09/2003,
A-Outlands]

ARRANGEMENT -- Forced
Move

There is not a CD for the placement on the field,
since the arrangement on the field is forced because the Or
wolves in Katherine's arms may not lie on the erminois parts of
the field. [Ingilborg Sigmundardóttir, 08/2001,
R-Caid]
[... a falcon contourny argent] Conflict with ...
Azure, a falcon close contourny argent. There is only one
CD for changes to the field. It also conflicts with ... Per
chevron argent and azure, in base a falcon counter-close
argent. There is one CD for the field but nothing for the
forced move of the bird to base. [Ailill Lockhart,
09/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
[Gules, in dexter chief a fret couped argent] This does
not conflict with ... Per fess gules fretty argent and
sable. There is one CD for the change to the field. The
comparison between the fretty in chief and the fret couped in
dexter chief is like the comparison between a mullet in chief and
a mullet in dexter chief. This is an unforced move and thus worth
a CD. This also does not conflict with ... Per saltire gules
and pean, a fret argent. There is one CD for the change to
the field and another for the unforced move of the primary charge
to dexter chief. [Ané{zv}ka z Ro{zv}mitála, 11/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[Quarterly vert and argent, two Latin crosses argent]
Conflict with ... Per pale azure and sable, two Latin crosses
fitchy argent. There is a CD for changes to the field, but
nothing for fitching the crosses. There is no difference for the
change of the arrangement of the crosses, since Faílenn's are
forced to be in bend by the field tincture. [Faílenn inghean
Mheanmain of Ulster, 11/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[Per chevron azure and vert, a chevron and in base a cross
clechy argent] This also conflicts with ... Per chevron
azure and vert, a chevron and a chief embattled argent. There
is one CD for changing the type of secondary charge to a cross
from a chief. RfS X.4.g only allows difference to be gotten for
changes to charge placement or arrangement if the change "is not
caused by other changes to the design". The placement change here
is caused by the change of type of secondary charge from a chief,
which has a mandatory placement. Therefore, there is not a second
CD for changing the arrangement. [Áine inghean uí
Ghríobhtha, 01/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Quarterly per fess rayonny Or and gules, in bend two birds
displayed sable] The device therefore conflicts with Edward
de Maccuswell, Per saltire argent and sable, in pale two
double-headed eagles displayed sable. There is one CD for
changing the field. There is no difference for arrangement by RfS
X.4.g. This rule states "Changing the relative positions of
charges in any group placed directly on the field or overall is
one clear difference, provided that change is not caused by other
changes to the design." Here, the change of arrangement is due to
another change to the design: the field tincture. The black birds
in Edward's arms may not lie on the black portions of the field
and therefore cannot be in bend like Brangwayn's birds.
There is no type difference between these generic birds and the
double-headed eagles. [Brangwayn Snowden, 01/2002,
R-Middle]
[Gules, in bend three escallops argent] Conflict with ...
Per fess azure and vair ancient, three escallops in chief
argent. There is one CD for changing the field. However,
there is not a second CD for the change in the arrangement of the
escallops. The change in the arrangement is caused by the change
in the field. One could not put three escallops argent in bend on
a per fess azure and vair ancient field, because the the
bottommost and centermost argent escallops would be placed wholly
or in part on the vair portion of the field, with which they have
inadequate contrast. According to RfS X.4.h [Ed: should be
X.4.g], "Changing the relative positions of charges in any
group placed directly on the field or overall is one clear
difference, provided that change is not caused by other changes
to the design." [Laurence of Damascus, 08/2002,
R-An Tir]
[Per chevron gules and sable, in base a dragon passant Or]
This does not conflict with ... Per fess indented azure and
gules, a wyvern passant Or. There is one CD for changing the
field and a second for the unforced move of the dragon to base.
While it is true that the dragon, in order to fill the space,
extends slightly into the upper half of the shield, the fact that
the dragon is entirely below the per chevron line of division is
an unmistakable visual cue that the charge is, indeed, in base.
[Alex the Scribe, 09/2002,
A-Atenveldt]

ARROW and
ARROWHEAD

[Azure, eight pheons in annulo shafts to
center argent] A question was raised in commentary about
whether this was overly reminiscent of the "Chaos shield"
insignia, which is a major item of insignia in Michael Moorcock's
Melniboné books. The Moorcock insignia is described with the
arrows conjoined in the center, as if they compose an eight-armed
cross. The separation of the pheons here should be sufficient to
avoid an overwhelming reference to that insignia. [Alessandra
di Fióre, 08/2001,
A-Meridies]
[Two arrows in saltire surmounted by a double-bitted axe
Or] Conflict with the device of Michael of York, Gules, a
sheaf of three arrows bound by a serpent coiled to sinister
guardant, all Or. ... The arrangement of the charges has not
changed: a sheaf of three arrows consists of two arrows in
saltire surmounted by a third arrow. RfS X.4.e only gives a CD
for changing the type of a group of charges when at least half
the group has changed in type. Here only one-third of the group
has changed in type. The serpent binding the sheaf in Michael's
arms is effectively a maintained charge, and its addition or
deletion is not worth difference. [Conall of Twin Moons,
08/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[fire arrows inverted proper flighted] An arrow
proper, according to the Pictorial Dictionary, has a
brown shaft and black head. A fire arrow, when proper, is
enflamed near the head in proper flames. [Ád Fáid,
09/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a bend counter-ermine between a bow nocked with an arrow and
a lion rampant] The group of charges around the bend is not
considered to be a group of three unlike charges (which would be
overly complex by RfS VIII.1.a):

[considering a strung bow and arrow along with another
charge] The question was raised as to whether or not this is
considered slot machine since it has three dissimilar charges
in one group. While it is true that it has three charges, when
a bow and arrow are in their standard, expected position they
are considered one charge, just like a sword in a scabbard is
considered one charge. It is only when they are separated, or
put into non standard positions for their normal use, such as
being crossed in saltire, that they become two separate
charges. (LoAR April 1999 p. 6)

[Roderick de Graham, 01/2003,
A-Calontir]
The elfbolt is an SCA-invented charge referring to a
stone-chipped arrowhead. The Pictorial Dictionary states
that "prehistoric specimens found by the ancients were attributed
to the Little People."

The College generally found that this artwork, which uses a
smoothly rounded charge to depict the elfbolt, was not
identifiable as the roughly chipped and angular SCA elfbolt. This
is reason for return under RfS VII.7.a.

The College also questioned whether an elfbolt should continue to
be registerable in the SCA, as it is an SCA-invented charge. The
charge clearly was an artifact that was known in period, namely,
old chipped arrowheads that could be found by period people. As a
period artifact, a stone-chipped arrowhead may be registered if
it is drawn identifiably. [Eckhart von Eschenbach,
03/2003,
R-Meridies]
There is substantial (RfS X.2) difference between arrows and
crampons. The charges were treated quite distinctly in period,
and there is notable visual difference between them. While it is
true that both arrows and crampons are long and pointed at one
end, so they have a certain similarity of shape, they are as
different in appearance from each other as a bow and a crossbow
(ruled substantially different in the LoAR of November 1996), a
pretzel and a triquetra (ruled substantially different in the
LoAR of April 2001), and a pear and a pinecone (ruled
substantially different in the LoAR of May 2001). [Diethelm
Waltorfer, 12/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[Gules, a sheaf of arrows within an annulet argent]
Conflict with Aeddan Ivor, Gules, a sheaf of three arrows
argent fletched vert marked sable, a chief embattled argent.
There is one CD for changing the chief to the annulet under RfS
X.4.e. However, there is no additional difference for changing
the tincture of the arrows. The head and fletching of arrows are
together considered half the tincture of the arrow (per the LoAR
of January 1992, p. 6), but the fletching alone is not half the
tincture of the arrow. Therefore, since less than half the
tincture of the arrow has changed, there is no difference per RfS
X.4.d. Note that Aeddan's fletching is indeed vert marked
sable, the sable markings are not elsewhere on the arrow.
[Ichijou Jirou Toshiyasu, 02/2004,
R-Atlantia]

ARTHROPOD -- Bee

[two
bees and a dragonfly counterchanged] When drawn clearly,
there is a CD between a bee and a dragonfly. However, there is
significant potential for visual confusion when the two are used
in the same group. In the drawing here, the types of charges are
not easily distinguished from each other. Hence, this must be
returned for redrawing. [Syslye ferch Morgan, 09/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[Azure, in chevron two wasps statant respectant within a
bordure argent] The previous device submission was returned
for using rampant insects. Those insects had their bodies
palewise with their limbs extended forward and outwards in a more
or less rampant fashion. This emblazon clearly uses statant
wasps. Even though their bodies are, as noted in the blazon,
tilted in chevron, they do not appear to be rampant, and they are
drawn differently from the wasps in the previous submission. This
redrawing meets the objection of the previous return.

The SCA has registered many insects statant, as well as other
arthropods statant (such as scorpions), even when the insect or
arthropod has only been documented as tergiant in period
heraldry. Without an extensive change in policy concerning the
acceptability of insects or arthropods statant, this may be
registered. [Robert Pine, 08/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a bee rising] Rising is not a defined posture for
insects. These bees are seen in profile with their wings addorsed
and their bodies hovering in intermediate postures between
bendwise and palewise. Their posture cannot be blazoned, and
therefore, this device must be returned.

Note that the SCA accepts bees in a statant posture (horizontal
body, legs down, wings addorsed). The SCA also accepts bees which
are statant in a clearly defined bendwise or bendwise sinister
posture. However, it is not acceptable to rotate a statant bee 90
degrees to a "palewise" posture. The resulting posture, with a
vertical body, and legs extended to dexter, is equivalent to the
previously forbidden "rampant" posture for bees and similar
insects. [Patrick Olsson, 10/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[(Fieldless) A bee statant proper] In the SCA, a bee
statant has its wings addorsed by default, as in the
August 2002 registration of Robert Pine's device.

This badge does not conflict with Aideen the Audacious,
(Fieldless) A bumblebee fesswise proper. There is one CD
for fieldlessness. Aideen's bumblebee is in its default tergiant
posture, and then rotated fesswise. There is a CD between a bee
tergiant fesswise and a bee statant. Both postures show the bees
with fesswise bodies, but a bee tergiant fesswise has wings
visible on both sides of the bee's body, while a bee statant only
has wings visible on the chiefmost side of the body. This
difference is worth a CD, analogous to the difference between a
bird rising wings displayed and a bird rising wings addorsed.
[Catríona nic Theàrlaigh, 12/2002,
A-An Tir]
[butterflies vs. bees volant en arrière] ... and a second
CD for changing the type of the group ... from bees to
butterflies. [Sorcha inghean Shearraigh, 07/2003,
A-Atlantia]

ARTHROPOD --
Miscellaneous

There does not appear to be a well defined
proper for ladybugs, and they can be found in various
colorations when in nature. Therefore, this bug has been blazoned
explicitly. [Morgan Skeene, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[two bees and a dragonfly counterchanged] When drawn
clearly, there is a CD between a bee and a dragonfly. However,
there is significant potential for visual confusion when the two
are used in the same group. In the drawing here, the types of
charges are not easily distinguished from each other. Hence, this
must be returned for redrawing. [Syslye ferch Morgan,
09/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[butterflies vs. bees volant en arrière] ... and a second
CD for changing the type of the group ... from bees to
butterflies. [Sorcha inghean Shearraigh, 07/2003,
A-Atlantia]

ARTHROPOD --
Spider

... the spider is not recognizable as drawn. A
spider has two roughly equally sized body segments, the
cephalothorax (a slightly smaller segment to which the legs are
attached) and the abdomen. The spider's legs are each, roughly,
as long as the body. In this emblazon, the abdomen is
disproportionately large: about four times the length that one
would expect given the size of the legs and cephalothorax, and
wider than one would expect as well. This changes the outline of
the spider so much that it cannot be recognized. [Valdís
Osborne, 09/2002,
R-An Tir]

AUGMENTATIONS

[Vert, a bull's
head caboshed Or, for augmentation, in chief a lance fesswise
argent dependent therefrom a pennant bearing Argent, a pale
gules, overall a dragon passant vert, in chief a laurel wreath
proper] The armory on the pennant isn't the Midrealm arms, as
stated on the LoI, because it does not include the crown. It does
include a laurel wreath, which may not be used in personal
armory, even in an augmentation (see Jan w Orzeldom, Ansteorra
returns, April 1992 LoAR). The arms of a branch without either
laurel wreath or crown may be used as an augmentation on personal
arms (see Jonathan DeLaufyson Macebearer, Ansteorra returns,
August 1988 LoAR). [Anna z Pernštejna, 09/2001,
R-Middle]
[Vert, in pale a lion couchant guardant and a laurel wreath
Or, as an augmentation, within the laurel wreath a triskele
argent] This armorial design consists a group of three
co-primary charges of different types, which violates RfS
VIII.1.a. However, RfS VIII.7, "Augmentations of Honor", states
"The augmentation may, however, on a case by case basis break the
rules in relation to the original armory." Augmentations in
period were commonly made by adding charges, which increases the
complexity of the armory thus augmented. Therefore, it seems
reasonable to grant an exemption for augmented armory that
violates the complexity rules if the armory is augmented in a
period fashion.

Some commenters asked whether adding a "random" charge on the
field is a period form of augmentation. Anthony Wagner and Arthur
Colin Cole co-authored "The Venetian Ambassador's Augmentation"
in The Coat of Arms, volume III (old series) numbers 19
(July 1954) and 20 (October 1954). The article states that
"during the reigns of Henry VII to George III it was customary
for the Ambassador of the Republic of Venice in London, at all
events if he remained in office for some length of time and
rendered distinguished service, to be knighted and granted an
augmentation of arms under the Great Seal ... Occasionally other
Venetians also were honoured by receiving grants of
augmentation." It then describes these augmentations. This
article shows a number of types of augmentation: creating
entirely new arms, adding quarterings, adding charged cantons,
adding charged chiefs, and adding charges to the field. As period
(or near-period) examples of the last practice, on February 12,
1550, Edward VI granted an augmentation to Daniel Barbar of
Venice. The original arms were Argent, an annulet gules,
and the augmentation placed a Tudor rose within the
annulet, much in the same way as the augmentation in this device
places a triskele within the laurel wreath. In 1608, James I
knighted and granted an augmentation to George Giustinian,
Ambassador of the Republic of Venice. The original arms were
Gules, on a double-headed crowned eagle Or an escutcheon Gules
charged with a fess Or, and the augmentation was in chief
a lion passant guardant maintaining a Scottish thistle Or.
[Oldenfeld, Shire of, 06/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[Sable, a torteau fimbriated and conjoined in fess with an
increscent and a decrescent Or, and as an augmentation on the
torteau, a rose sable charged with a rose Or, thereon a mullet of
five greater and five lesser points sable] Because this
submission uses a sable rose on a gules roundel, it violates the
rules of contrast in RfS VIII.2.a. It has been explicitly ruled
that augmentations may not violate the rules of contrast until
such time that documentation is presented showing such violations
of contrast to be standard in period augmentations:

The basic question raised by this submission is can an
augmentation break the rule of tincture? ... only one example
of period use of an augmentation breaking the rule of tincture
was found. Barring documentation of large numbers of period
augmentations that break the rule of tincture, we are unwilling
to register this practice. (LoAR August 1997 p. 26)

In addition, the augmentation violates the stylistic
"layer limit" (RfS VIII.1.c.ii). The most generous interpretation
of this augmentation would place a type of mullet on a double
rose, which double rose lays entirely on a roundel (not "directly
on the field"), thus violating the rule. It is necessary to
demonstrate that such a violation of the layer limit would be
compatible with period styles of augmentation in order for this
practice to be acceptable.

The submitter has been given permission for the augmentation to
match a registered badge of the Kingdom of Ansteorra,
(Fieldless) A rose sable charged with a rose Or, thereon a
mullet of five greater and five lesser points sable. The SCA
has registered numerous augmentations in which a kingdom badge is
used as an augmentation for an individual. In all such cases, in
order for the augmentation to be registered, the kingdom must
give permission for the badge to be used as the augmentation, and
the badge must be stylistically acceptable as an augmentation in
the context of the armory which it augments. [Tivar
Moondragon, 09/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[... a chief vert and for augmentation, on a canton Or a tower
and overall a sword sable] This emblazon does not appear to
depict a correct way of combining a canton with a chief. The
canton as drawn in this emblazon takes up a bit less than the
dexter third of the chief in its horizontal extent and extends
exactly to the bottom of the chief in its vertical extent. This
seems neither the correct way to charge a chief with a canton,
nor the correct way to place a canton so that it surmounts the
entire device.

Parker, in A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, states
that a canton, when combined with a chief, will overlie the
chief. This implies that the canton will extend onto the field.
In this armory, since the canton and the field are of the same
tincture, this might result in problems with our rules for
contrast (RfS VIII.2). Franklyn and Tanner, An Encyclopaedic
Dictionary of Heraldry, p. 59, indicate that a canton can be
charged on a chief but they also state that "A canton on a chief
ought to be slightly smaller than the chief's width in order not
to appear like a chief party per 'side'."

We suggest that, if the submitter resubmits, she include
documentation that the form of augmentation that she plans to use
is found in period armory. Note that if she attempts to resubmit
with the canton lying entirely on the chief, or to otherwise
submit with a charged charge on the chief, she should
specifically address how such a violation of the "layer limit"
(RfS VIII.1.c.ii) would be compatible with period styles of
augmentation. [Rachel Wallace, 09/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[adding coronets to a device] This submission exceeds the
rule of thumb for complexity in RfS VIII.1.a, as the number of
tinctures and the number of types of charge total nine. This rule
of thumb may be exceeded in cases where the armory adheres
strongly to period armorial design, but that is not the case in
this device.

It is important to note that the allowances for overcomplexity
when considering augmentations do not apply to simple device
changes. Device changes incorporating symbols of rank are not
augmentations. Augmentations are a special honor from the crown.
[Sara Charmaine of Falkensee, 01/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
From Wreath: Augmentations
This was a busy month for augmentations. An augmentation is one
of the highest honors bestowed by the SCA: it behooves us to make
policies for augmentations as clear as possible, so that the
excellent people receiving the honor have as little difficulty
with registering augmentations as possible. Therefore, while the
ensuing discussion mostly addresses issues raised by the
augmentations this month, it also addresses some other general
issues and policies that arise frequently when considering
augmentations.

We particularly direct kingdom heralds to the sections on
"Kingdom Badges that are Designated as an Augmentation" and
"Augmentations and Appropriate Content", as they set forth some
previously unstated policies and interpretations.

Who Specifies the Form of an Augmentation

We remind the College that the form of an augmentation is
determined according to the normal registration process: the
submitter proposes the form of the augmentation and it is either
accepted (or not) based on the Rules for Submission. The form of
the augmentation cannot be mandated by the crown bestowing it.
RfS VIII.7 states "While the right to an augmentation is bestowed
by the crown, its form is subject to the normal registration
process." The Board of Directors has upheld this policy:

[Concerning an augmentation whose form was specified by the
granting Crown] At the time of the August [1987 Laurel] meeting
this submission was pended, despite the strong conviction of
most of the College that it infringed on the proper usage of [a
reserved charge]. Since it involved a "constitutional issue",
i.e., in the event of conflict between the will of the Crown
and the decision of the College, which takes priority. As the
Board of Directors at its January meeting has now decided that
the College may not be compelled to register that which is in
violation of its existing rules, this submission is now
formally returned. (LoAR February 1988)

Augmentations and General Paperwork

If a person's device changes at the same time that an
augmentation is added, the armorial changes need to be performed
in two separate submissions actions, each with its own set of
submission forms: one for the change of the device (without the
augmentation) and one depicting the changed device and adding the
augmentation: "... as we protect both the augmented arms and the
unaugmented arms, a device change and an augmentation must be
submitted as two separate actions" (LoAR October 2000).

Augmentations and General Conflict Issues

RfS VIII.7 states, "If [the augmentation] has the appearance of
being independent armory, for example a charged escutcheon or
canton, then it is independently subject to the normal rules of
armorial conflict." This means that the augmentation must be
checked for conflict as if it were a separate piece of
armory.

Note that the converse is not true: it is not necessary to check
new devices or badges for conflict against previously existing
augmentations that have the appearance of being independent
armory. This is because the augmentations do not have an
existence separate from the arms that they augment, and therefore
are not independently protectable entities. Per the LoAR of
October 1985: "Arms may be borne with or without an augmentation,
but the augmentation should not be used separately from the
arms."

Some commenters have theorized that if a person registers an
augmentation that appears to be independent armory, the
independent armory is somehow grandfathered to the kingdom that
originally bestowed the augmentation, and thus (the theory
continues) the independent armory could be registered by any new
recipient of an augmentation from that kingdom. But this cannot
be the case, because the augmentation does not have an
independent existence, and because the kingdom has no ownership
of, or even control of, the form taken by an individual's
augmentation.

Note also that, per RfS VIII.7, it is not necessary to check
augmentations for conflict when they do not have the appearance
of an independent display of armory. If someone's augmentation
takes the form ... and for augmentation, in chief a rose
argent, the rose in chief does not have the appearance of an
independent display of armory, and one does not have to check it
for conflict as if it were (Fieldless) A rose argent.

We also remind the College that augmented arms are to be checked
for conflict both with and without the augmentation:
"Augmentations in Society armory should always be blazoned as
such; the bearer has the option of displaying the armory with or
without the augmentation, and conflict should be checked against
both versions" (LoAR September 1992, pg. 26).

Augmentations and Letters of Permission

The SCA has previously registered augmentations that appeared to
be independent armory and were in conflict with - or identical to
- a badge owned by a kingdom or some other entity. In these
cases, it has been necessary for the person with the augmentation
to have a letter of permission from the owner of the badge in
order to register that augmentation. As noted in the LoAR of
September 1995 regarding an augmentation (which was in conflict
with armory belonging to a kingdom):

For the ... conflict, we need to receive a letter of permission
to conflict signed by the Crown or the kingdom Seneschal. It
has always been the policy of the College not to assume that
permission is given even if explicitly stated in a LoI (which
was not the case here), but to require a copy of a written
letter of permission to conflict.

Such permission was explicitly stated to be present
in the first of a (relatively) long line of augmentations from
the crown of Caid where the recipient elected to use the Caidan
War Banner on a charged canton or escutcheon, per the LoAR of
October 1995: "A letter of permission from the Crown of Caid for
the use of the War Banner of Caid as an augmentation has been
received by the Laurel office." These letters of permission to
conflict have not always been mentioned in the LoAR, but are
present with the paperwork.

Kingdom Badges That Are Designated as an Augmentation

In the case where a kingdom has a badge designated as an
augmentation, it seems appropriate to rule that a person or
entity with an augmentation from that kingdom may be assumed to
have permission for his/her/its augmentation to conflict with the
specifically-designated augmentation badge. Kingdoms that already
have badges that are serving as an augmentation should strongly
consider adding the "augmentation" designation to those badges,
to cut down on subsequent paperwork with letters of permission to
conflict.

A kingdom badge that is designated as an augmentation may not
imply any particular rank or status for the bearer. It is
appropriate for a kingdom to consider adding an "augmentation"
designation to a populace badge, ensign, war banner, or a
previously undesignated badge without reserved charges. It is not
appropriate to add an "augmentation" designation to an order,
award, or office badge, or to an undesignated badge with a
reserved charge.

The augmentation of the Kingdom of Meridies, (Fieldless) Three
mullets one and two argent, was registered in the LoAR of
March 1996 with the following comments: "This is an augmentation
of arms which the Crown of Meridies may grant to individuals it
deems worthy. It's [sic] purpose is not the same as a
fieldless badge; as an augmentation, it should always be
displayed on a field by the recipients." These LoAR comments
referred to the fact that the armory contained charges that were
not conjoined. Then, as now, such armory was illegal style on a
fieldless badge per RfS VIII.5. But, because an augmentation will
always be displayed on a field, a designated augmentation may
break these fieldless style rules. The other constraints in RfS
VIII.5 could also be broken for an augmentation, so a kingdom
could register an augmentation of (Fieldless) a bordure
embattled ... or (Fieldless) a bend charged with ...,
even though these would not be registerable designs for any other
type of fieldless armory.

It also seems appropriate to allow a kingdom's designated
augmentations to incorporate armorial motifs that are
grandfathered to that kingdom, thereby allowing users of a
designated augmentation to receive the same grandfathering that
the kingdom would have. As an example, hypothesize that the
Kingdom of Atlantia chose to designate its badge, (Fieldless)
A unicornate natural seahorse erect azure, finned argent, as
an augmentation. The SCA's current policies do not allow new
registrations of unicornate natural seahorses without the use of
the grandfather clause. A hypothetical Atlantian recipient of an
augmentation could place the designated augmentation on any
suitable place on his device. If he already had an uncharged
canton Or on his device, he could create the augmentation for
augmentation, on the canton a unicornate natural seahorse erect
azure, finned argent. However, a hypothetical Atlantian
recipient of an augmentation could not use the designated badge
to create the augmentation for augmentation, on a canton Or a
unicornate natural seahorse erect azure finned argent. This
augmentation would not be identical to the designated
augmentation, and thus, the kingdom's grandfathering would not
extend to this augmentation.

Augmentations and Appropriate Content

The September 1995 LoAR ruled in general that no piece of armory
could be exactly duplicated as an augmentation: "We have not
previously allowed armory, even as an augmentation, to be an
identical version of the armory of a group or office, whether or
not a letter of permission to conflict existed." However, this
portion of ruling has been overruled by the October 1995
acceptance of the Caidan War Banner as an augmentation, and by
successive similar registrations. At this point, in some cases
augmentations may be identical to armory belonging to a group (or
an individual). However, the point that an augmentation must not
appear to be a claim to "status or powers the submitter does not
possess" (RfS XI) is one that must be considered whenever an
augmentation is registered.

Precedent notes that, in at least some cases, the use of a badge
of office as part of an augmentation may give an incorrect
implication that the holder of the augmentation is the holder of
the office. Since that statement will not always be true, the
augmentation is not allowed in that circumstance. The LoAR of
September 1995 dealt with an augmentation where the owner of the
augmentation quartered her original coat with a quartering that
was a tinctured version of a kingdom herald's seal. That ruling
read, in the immediately pertinent part:

The exact conflict with the seal of the office of the ...
Principal Herald is more troublesome for a couple of reasons...
[one reason that] it is troublesome is that it was a period
practice for the holders of an office to marshal the arms of
the office with their personal arms. This does not appear to
apply to former holders of the office, but only to
incumbents. As a consequence, this augmentation appears to be a
claim to be the current ... Principal Herald, which does then
fall afoul of our rules against the claim to 'status or powers
the submitter does not possess' (RfS XI).

We also believe that any augmentation that
incorporates the badge of an office in a fashion that resembles
an independent display of arms is likely to give a very strong
implication that the submitter holds that office, even outside of
the context of marshalling. We note that there is no pattern of
use of badges of office used in the SCA as augmentations. Only
one such augmentation has been registered (a sinister canton
of the arms of the Exchequer of the West registered in 1979).
Therefore, we rule that it is not permissible for an augmentation
to exactly duplicate a badge of office, even with a letter of
permission.

Precedent holds that individuals may not register an augmentation
that uses an inappropriate reserved charge, as it would be such a
claim to "status or powers the submitter does not possess". Per
the LoAR of April 1992: "Laurel wreaths have always been reserved
in the Society to branches of the Society, and may not be
registered to an individual. (see, e.g., Baldwin of Erebor, LoAR
of 10 March 1985, p.4) It is Laurel's belief, and that of many of
the commenting heralds, that this restriction applies to
augmentations as well as to devices, the same way that coronets
and loops of chain, even as augmentations, have been restricted
to those who may rightfully bear them."

It also seems appropriate to consider whether an augmentation may
ever duplicate the badge of an order or award. Such an
augmentation gives a strong implication that the owner of the
augmentation is a member of that order, or a holder of that
award. We at this time rule that such an augmentation cannot be
registered if the owner of the augmentation is not a member of
that order or does not hold that award, even if he has a letter
of permission from the branch that owns the badge. We leave open
the question of whether it is ever appropriate to register an
augmentation that is identical to an award or order badge.
[10/2003,
CL]
[for augmentation on a canton purpure a cross of Calatrava and
a bordure Or] The augmentation conflicts with ... Purpure,
a cross moline disjointed, a bordure Or. The augmentation in
this submission appears to be a display of the armory Purpure,
a cross of Calatrava and a bordure Or, which has one CD ...
for changing the type of cross, but does not have the substantial
difference required to qualify for RfS X.2. [Edward Cire of
Greymoor, 10/2003,
R-An Tir]
We are aware of the previous registration of an augmentation to
Valens of Flatrock in 1993, Vert, a bend azure fimbriated Or
between a tower argent and a castle Or, and for augmentation, on
a canton purpure a cross of Calatrava within a bordure Or.
He, like Andreas, is the recipient of an augmentation from the
Crown of Calontir. However, Valens' augmentation (which predates
Bianca's 1996 registration) does not protect the armory
Purpure, a cross of Calatrava within a bordure Or against
conflict, nor does it in any way grandfather the use of this
armory for recipients of augmentations from the Kingdom of
Calontir. As stated in a pertinent excerpt from the Cover Letter
to the October 2003 LoAR:

It is not necessary to check new devices or badges for conflict
against previously existing augmentations that have the
appearance of being independent armory. This is because the
augmentations do not have an existence separate from the arms
that they augment, and therefore are not independently
protectable entities. Per the LoAR of October 1985: "Arms may
be borne with or without an augmentation, but the augmentation
should not be used separately from the arms."

Some commenters have theorized that if a person registers an
augmentation that appears to be independent armory, the
independent armory is somehow grandfathered to the kingdom that
originally bestowed the augmentation, and thus (the theory
continues) the independent armory could be registered by any
new recipient of an augmentation from that kingdom. But this
cannot be the case, because the augmentation does not have an
independent existence, and because the kingdom has no ownership
of, or even control of, the form taken by an individual's
augmentation.

We note that Bianca registered her device through
the kingdom of Calontir. Since it appears that many recipients of
augmentations from Calontir wish to use the augmentation found in
this submission, we strongly suggest that the kingdom of Calontir
attempt to register Purpure, a cross of Calatrava within a
bordure Or as a badge designated as an augmentation. If it is
able to do so (which will require, at minimum, permission to
conflict from Bianca), then as stated in the October 2003 Cover
Letter, further recipients of augmentations from Calontir will be
able to use this designated augmentation badge as an augmentation
on an appropriate form of display (including a canton or
inescutcheon), without requiring letters of permission from the
Crown of Calontir against their badge, and without requiring a
letter of permission to conflict from Bianca. [Andreas
Seljukroctonis, 12/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Per bend sinister gules and purpure, on a bend sinister
dovetailed argent between two double-bitted axes Or a bull's head
caboshed palewise sable and for augmentation, on a canton purpure
a cross of Calatrava within a bordure Or] It is acceptable
for an augmentation to surmount a portion of the underlying
armory even if, as in this emblazon, it renders one of the
charges unidentifiable by surmounting it almost entirely. The
effective invisibility of the charge under the canton is apparent
from the blazon and should be taken into account when doing
conflict checking. [Andreas Seljukroctonis, 12/2003,
R-Calontir] [Ed.: Augmentation returned for conflict]
[Per bend sinister sable and gules, on a bend sinister wavy
argent a ducal coronet bendwise sable, in chief three passion
nails inverted bendwise in bend sinister gules enflamed Or and in
base, for augmentation, an inescutcheon azure charged with a
demi-sun issuant from base Or within a bordure argent] The
device change was made on a form that also depicted the
(pre-existing) augmentation. Precedent states "As we protect both
the augmented arms and the unaugmented arms, a device change and
an augmentation must be submitted as two separate actions" (LoAR
October 2000). The same logic implies that, because we protect
both the augmented arms and the unaugmented arms, in order to
register this we will need two actions, each action with
associated forms: one representing the unaugmented device change,
and one representing the augmented device change.

It is important to note that if armory is changed with a
previously existing augmentation, it is possible for that
augmentation to become incompatible with the underlying armory
due to the armory change. When this happens, the augmentation is
not "automatically grandfathered", because (as noted in the Cover
Letter to the October 2003 LoAR) "Augmentations do not have an
existence separate from the arms that they augment, and therefore
are not independently protectable entities."

As an example, consider the case of a submitter with the
hypothetical armory Or, a pall inverted vert, for
augmentation, in canton an estoile azure, who then submits a
device change for the underlying device to Vert, a pall
inverted Or, and for the augmented device to Vert, a pall
inverted Or, for augmentation, in canton an estoile azure.
The augmentation would violate RfS VIII.7, which states that "The
augmentation must itself follow the armory rules", in conjunction
with the ruling in the LoAR of August 1997, p. 26, which stated
"Barring documentation of large numbers of period augmentations
that break the rule of tincture, we are unwilling to register
this practice."

Because the old augmentation is not compatible with the new
device change, Laurel would be forced to (without extra direction
from the submitter) register the new device change (unaugmented)
and return the augmented device change. The "old augmented
device" could not be retained as a badge and thus must be
released. At the end of this series of actions, the submitter
would no longer have a blue estoile augmentation on his list of
registered items. In order to avoid this situation, the submitter
could, as part of the original submission, add an administrative
note to the submission indicating that, if the changed augmented
arms were not registerable, the unaugmented device change is to
be withdrawn, and the previous device (augmented or not) is to be
retained. [Kathryn of Iveragh, 02/2004,
R-Outlands]

AXE

[axe vs.
double-bitted axe] ... nothing for changing the type of axes.
[Eleri of Caerleon, 11/2001,
R-Meridies]
Note that under current precedent, there is no difference for
changing the tincture of the hafts of the axes: "[A woodaxe
reversed argent] Conflict with... a battle axe Or, headed
argent, the edge to sinister... In each case there is... nothing
for the change in tincture of the handle only." (LoAR June 1992
p.18). [Sefferey of Wessex, 02/2002,
A-Meridies]

BALANCE

[Sable, a hanging balance atop
a sword argent] The hanging balance is not depicted
correctly. The balance should have pans hanging by chains at each
end of the arm of the balance. Instead, the emblazon shows all
the space between the chains and over the pans as argent (in
addition to the argent chains and pans). As a result, this
submission more closely resembles two bags hanging from a yoke
than a hanging balance. The artwork needs to be redrawn to
clearly depict either a hanging balance, or two bags hanging from
a yoke.

Please note that there is a conflict problem with this submission
as well. A hanging balance atop a sword resembles a standing
balance so closely that it is not given difference from a
standing balance. The LoAR of January 1998 noted that a hanging
balance resting atop a vertical "stand-shaped" charge can be
given no difference from a standing balance: "[Gules, a
double-bitted axe inverted and balanced on its haft a set of
scales Or.] This conflicts with ... (Fieldless) A standing
balance Or., with one CD for the field." The same problem
applies to this design. Thus, if the hanging balance were redrawn
correctly, this would conflict with ... Sable platy, a
standing balance argent. There would be one CD for removing
the plates, but no difference between the hanging balance atop
the sword and the standing balance. [Cathal the Black,
09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[in pale a hanging balance and a sword inverted Or] In
this emblazon, the hanging balance and the sword inverted are so
close to each other that they are almost conjoined. This emblazon
resembled a standing balance so closely that this submission is
in visual conflict under RfS X.5 with ... (Fieldless) A
standing balance Or.

Note that precedent has previously held that a hanging balance
resting atop a vertical "stand-shaped" charge can be given no
difference from a standing balance without invoking RfS X.5, in
cases where the hanging balance was conjoined to the
"stand-shaped" charge. The LoAR of January 1998 noted that:
"[Gules, a double-bitted axe inverted and balanced on its haft a
set of scales Or.] This conflicts with ... (Fieldless) A
standing balance Or., with one CD for the field." This
precedent was reaffirmed in the LoAR of September 2003 where a
hanging balance atop a sword was given no difference from a
standing balance. [Tigernan Fox, 01/2004,
R-East]

[a
base engrailed] The engrailing is too small and shallow to be
acceptable. There are ten cups in the engrailing, which would be
a fairly large number on a fess. Here the width across the base
is much smaller than the width of a fess. [Derdriu de
Duglas, 10/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[Argent, three crosses of Cerdaña sable between a chief and a
base azure] This armory is visually equivalent to Azure, a
fess argent charged with three crosses of Cerdaña two and one
sable. It therefore conflicts with a number of pieces of
armory protected by the SCA, including the flag of Honduras
(important non-SCA flag), Azure, on a fess argent five mullets
in saltire azure, and ... Azure, upon a fess argent, a
mole's paw print sable. In each case there is only one CD for
the cumulative changes to the group of charges on the fess.
[Bianca Sereni, 09/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[three points] Previous precedent has held:

Although all three 'points' are mentioned in heraldic tracts,
in practice only the base one appears to have been used; and
even in the tracts, the dexter and sinister points are
described as abatements of honor, to be used separately, and
not in conjunction." (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 4/92, p. 19) No
documentation was presented to contradict this precedent. As a
consequence, the precedent disallowing the use of dexter and/or
sinister points remains in place (LoAR December 1993).

We also have not been provided with documentation to
support this design as period style and thus continue to uphold
the previous precedents. [Shirin al-Adawiya, 12/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Per chevron ployé argent and vert, three compass stars
counterchanged] The submission was originally blazoned using
a point pointed rather than a per chevron field division.
However, because the three compass stars are of the same type and
size, and because heraldic designs of the form Per chevron
three [charges] counterchanged are much more common than
designs using a point pointed in any fashion, the overwhelming
visual impression is of armory using a per chevron line, with the
line drawn somewhat lower on the shield than usual. We have thus
reblazoned it accordingly. [Duncan Darroch, 01/2003,
R-An Tir]
This emblazon does not clearly use a point pointed, nor does it
clearly use a per chevron division. This is reason for return by
RfS VII.7.a.

The top of the point pointed is slightly above the fess line in
the large sized emblazon. The mini-emblazon showed a standard
point pointed, which was notably shorter than the one in the
full-sized emblazon. Therefore, the difference between the
mini-emblazon and the full-sized emblazon did not allow the
College to comment properly on this submission. [Wilhelm von
Düsseldorf, 02/2003,
R-West]
[Per chevron argent and azure, in chief a rose slipped and
leaved fesswise and in base six gouttes three two and one,
counterchanged] The device does not clearly use a per chevron
line of division, nor does it use a point pointed. Because of
this ambiguity this must be returned under RfS VII.7.a.

Note that a per chevron line of division should appear to divide
the field into two equal pieces. This emblazon does not give that
appearance. One reason is that the per chevron line is drawn
somewhat low on the field - it appears to have been drawn by
using the form's guidelines for a per saltire division and
drawing the bottom section of that field. In addition, the fact
that the rose in chief is drawn as a small charge, with lots of
field around it, implies that it is not a charge filling its half
of an equally divided field. [Duvessa of Movilla, 03/2003,
R-Middle]
[Argent, a pile inverted vert issuant from a ford proper]
The ford is drawn with the blue stripe to chief, lying entirely
against the vert pile inverted. This has insufficient contrast,
as the remainder of the ford does not have enough stripes to
clearly identify it as a ford. If the ford were drawn with two
more stripes, or if the pile issued from the center of the ford
(so that the top stripe on the ford laid partially against the
field), there would not be a problem with having the blue stripe
at the top of the ford.

The College had some questions about the way that the bottom of
the ford extends exactly across the bottom of the pile inverted.
As a general rule, we would expect a pile inverted to be somewhat
thinner and thus issue from the center of the ford, rather than
extend all the way across the ford. [Kateryne Segrave,
04/2003,
R-East]
[Sable, a dhow Or sailed argent issuant from a ford proper and
in chief a decrescent and an increscent Or] Some commenters
inquired if this armory was overly pictorial armory per RfS
VIII.4.a, "Pictorial Design", which states, in part, "Design
elements should not be combined to create a picture of a scene or
landscape. For example, combining a field divided per fess
wavy azure and Or with a sun and three triangles Or, as well
as a camel and two palm trees proper to depict the Nile Valley
would not be acceptable." It is important to remember that
heraldry reminiscent of simple landscapes is not uncommon period
armory. The "landscape" in this armory is similar to period
armorial designs, and is much simpler than the example given in
RfS VIII.4.a.

In particular, period civic armory often includes designs where a
ship or a building issues from a ford or similar charge depicting
water in base. Jiri Louda's European Civic Coats of Arms
gives the history of many civic coats of arms along with
illustrations. The arms of Paris in the 13th C were Gules, a
lymphad issuant from a base wavy argent, and Charles V added
a chief azure semy-de-lys Or in 1358. A piece of civic
armory even more reminiscent of a landscape was granted to
Cambridge in 1575, Gules an arched bridge throughout, in chief
a fleur-de-lys Or between two roses argent barbed and seeded
proper, in base three lymphads sable sailing atop a ford
proper. [Achmed ibn Yousef, 05/2003,
A-Atlantia]
A question was raised about the depiction of the ford, which has
four barry wavy traits. Some commenters asked whether it was
necessary to draw the ford with six traits. It is perfectly
acceptable (and sometimes ideal) to draw a ford with four barry
wavy traits. Perhaps this question arose due to the recommended
way of drawing a barry wavy field. A barry wavy field is usually
drawn with six or more traits, but there is much less room to
draw that many traits on a ford, which is often less than
one-third of the height of the field. Six or more barry wavy
traits on a ford will often result in undesirably narrow traits.
Four traits is an excellent compromise depiction for many fords.
[Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
Note that SCA blazon always explicitly tinctures a ford. If the
tinctures of the ford are argent and azure (or the other way
around) it may be blazoned as proper. [Thomas Joseph de
Lacy, 11/2003,
A-Caid]
[a merman .... issuant from a base] Some commenters
mentioned the fact that the merman has his tail reflexed up in a
'u' in this emblazon. The main body of the merman through the top
of his tail (where his hips would be if he had them) issues from
the base, and the end of his tail also issues from the base, and
these two pieces of the merman are not conjoined to each other.
This is an acceptable way of drawing a merman issuant from a
base. It is analogous to the period practice of drawing a
demi-lion issuant from a line of division so both the demi-lion
and the end of the demi-lion's tail are issuant from the line of
division and are not conjoined to each other. It is the choice of
the heraldic artist to decide whether to draw the merman in this
fashion, whether to draw him so that his body and tail end are
conjoined, or to draw him without the tail tip showing at all.
[Christopher MacEveny, 01/2004,
A-An Tir]

BEAST --
Badger

[a badger rampant sable] The badger was
originally blazoned as sable marked argent, but it is
predominantly sable with only a few small argent details. We
generally do not blazon a charge as "marked" when the marking
details are so small. In addition, we might mistakenly give the
impression that large portions of the badger (such as its
underside) are argent, which might lead to emblazons that have
inadequate contrast with the argent field. [Gareth Craig,
08/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
This month, some questions were raised about the tincture of a
previously registered SCA brock proper. The tincture of a brock
(or badger) proper is not clearly defined in SCA or real-world
heraldic practice. We here state explicitly that the SCA has no
default proper tincture for brocks or badgers. In this LoAR, we
have reblazoned the few pieces of existing SCA armory that were
blazoned using brocks or badgers proper. [11/2003,
CL]
[brock vs. wolverine] A wolverine is not a charge that is
used in period heraldry, so its difference from a badger must be
determined on visual grounds per RfS X.4.e. There is not
sufficient difference between a badger and a wolverine to give a
CD for this type change. [Caisséne Merdrech, 11/2003,
R-Atlantia]

BEAST --
Bat

[a reremouse displayed head to dexter] The
reremouse is both displayed and guardant by default. Since this
reremouse is displayed but has its head turned to dexter, its
posture has been explicitly blazoned for clarity. [Mat of
Forth Castle, 03/2002,
A-Meridies]
The submitter requested that these charges, normally blazoned as
reremice, be blazoned using the common term bats.
Since the term bat for this animal is not heraldically
ambiguous, and it has been registered recently (in July 2001), we
may accede to her request. [Elynor O'Brian, 09/2002,
A-Caid]
[a reremouse inverted] Bats inverted have been explicitly
allowed in the SCA in the past, as long as they are identifiable
(as is the case here):

While the inversion of the bat is unusual, it remains (even at
a distance) identifiable... Because of the bird-like nature of
the bat, we believe that it should be allowed a posture which
is not so very different from "migrant to base", which posture
has not been disallowed under the ban on "inverted creatures"
noted in the September 1993 LoAR. [The badge was registered]
(LoAR September 1994)

There is also a recent precedent concerning tergiant
animals which applies equally well to bats displayed:

A significant number of commenters felt that inverting a
tergiant charge which is commonly found as tergiant (such as a
tergiant scorpion or a frog) does not hamper the
identifiability of the charge so much as to render it
unidentifiable, and they felt that it should be acceptable. The
frog in this submission certainly retains its identifiability
very clearly in the inverted posture. As a result, inverting a
tergiant charge is acceptable as long as it does not otherwise
violate any basic heraldic principles, including the
requirement for identifiability. Because of the lack of period
evidence for tergiant inverted charges, the posture will be
considered a clear step from period practice (also known
informally as a "weirdness") for any charge that cannot be
found in this posture in period (LoAR May 2002).

We will accordingly consider a bat (displayed)
inverted to be a step from period practice ("a weirdness") unless
documentation is provided for bats inverted in period heraldry.
[Zhou Long Xi Xian Sheng, 10/2002,
A-Lochac]
[a reremouse dormant pendant from a branch] The reremouse
is hanging upside down and has its wings wrapped around its body
in a natural sleeping posture. This posture is not registerable
by previous precedent: "[a reremouse dormant dependent from an
annulet] The bat was not dormant, but was rather in
its natural sleeping posture. We know of no examples of this
posture in period heraldic depictions of bats, and for good
reason: this posture eliminates any identifiable aspects of the
bat. Therefore the device violates VIII.4.c, Natural Depiction:
... Excessively natural designs include those that depict
animate objects in unheraldic postures ... and VIII.3,
Armorial Identifiability" (LoAR August 2000). [Sebastian
Goulde, 09/2003,
R-Middle]

BEAST --
Bear

[a panda bear] By current precedent, it is not
acceptable to use a species of flora or fauna in armory which was
not known to Europeans in period: "The primary charge is the leaf
of a vanillaleaf plant (genus Achlys). Europeans did not
discover it until the 18th century so [it] cannot be used in SCA
armory" (LoAR February 2000). The most recent precedent
explicitly concerning pandas notes in pertinent part that the
panda was not known to Europeans in period: "Lanner provided some
distinct evidence that the panda was not seen by an European
until this century and that its furs were not known to Europeans
until the last century" (LoAR December 1989). The panda is
therefore not acceptable for registration. [Zubaydah
as-Zahra, 02/2002,
R-Meridies]
[a bear rampant contourny gules] Conflict with Elfarch
Myddfai, Or, a bear legged of an eagle's legs rampant to
sinister gules. There is one CD for changing the field but no
difference for changing the type of the bear's feet. [Od
Barbarossa, 07/2002,
R-Calontir]
[a bear vs. a winged bear] There is one CD for removing
the wings ... [Wilhelm Bär, 02/2003,
R-Calontir]

BEAST --
Beaver

[a beaver vs. a sea-dog] ... and a second CD
for the type difference between a sea-dog and a beaver.

One commenter asserted that the sea-dog is "the heraldic
depiction of a natural beaver", and went on to reason that, as a
result, no difference should be given between a sea-dog and a
beaver. No references or documentation were provided to support
this assertion. Two questions are begged by this unsupported
assertion:

What natural animal (if any) is the origin of the
sea-dog?

If the sea-dog originates from some natural animal, should
we give difference between the sea-dog and the heraldic
version of that originating animal? (and in any case, should
we give difference between a sea-dog and a beaver?)

As for the first question, the only source we found saying
that the beaver is the origin of the sea-dog is Fox-Davies' A
Complete Guide to Heraldry, where the sea-dog is discussed
with the other dogs in the chapter titled "Beasts". Parker's A
Glossary of Terms Used in Heraldry mentions a conjecture that
the crocodile is the origin of the sea-dog. However, it seems
generally agreed that the most likely origin of the sea-dog is
the otter (as stated in Parker's A Glossary of Terms Used in
Heraldry, Woodward's A Treatise on Heraldry British and
Foreign, and Moule's The Heraldry of Fish).

As for the second question, RfS X.4.e gives clear criteria for
when we should, and should not, give difference between two
charges. That rule states "Types of charges considered to be
separate in period, for example a lion and an heraldic tyger,
will be considered different."

In comparing the sea-dog with the most likely animal of origin,
the otter, Woodward states explicitly that "The otter may be the
original of the heraldic creature known as the sea-dog, but it is
quite clear that, as represented, the latter finds a fitting
place among armorial monsters. The otter, of whose use in armory
The Heraldry of Fish contains a sufficient number of
instances both as a charge and as a supporter, is usually drawn
proper, and is thus very unlike the heraldic sea-dog." By
"drawn proper" it is clear in context that Woodward means "drawn
naturalistically" rather than "in its proper tincture": The
Heraldry of Fish, pp. 147-149, provides a sizeable discussion
of armory using otters, none of which are tinctured
proper, but which are illustrated using naturalistic
otters.

Visually, the sea-dog is quite distinct in period heraldry from
period heraldic otters and from period heraldic beavers. The
sea-dog is drawn like a talbot with prominent scales and fins. It
often has a paddle-shaped tail, but not always: the sea-hounds
dated to 1547 on p. 155 of Dennys' The Heraldic
Imagination do not have paddle-shaped tails. The sea-dog's
prominent fins often extend to the head of the creature as in the
crest circa 1528 for Thomson on the bottom row of figure 13 of
Woodcock and Robinson's The Oxford Guide to Heraldry,
stated in the index to be a sea-dog.

By contrast, the heraldic otter is drawn as a smooth-furred
animal with the shape of an ermine, except with a wider tail, as
can be seen in the various arms of Meldrum (a good example is in
the 15th C Armorial de Berry). The otter's head is a
particularly popular charge in period Scottish heraldry, and is
very different from the finned talbot-like head of a sea-dog: the
heraldic otter's head has a pointed weasel-like face and small
erect round ears, rather than the blunt muzzle, large floppy
ears, and finny details of a sea-dog's head.

The heraldic beaver is drawn with a stocky, smooth-furred (not
finned or scaled) body, a wide (usually, but not always,
paddle-like) tail, and small or nonexistent ears. It is sometimes
contorted into an unspeakable posture based on the medieval view
of this animal's habits, as noted in Dennys' The Heraldic
Imagination, p. 151. As an example of a beaver in a standard
heraldic posture, see the family of Biber, Or, a beaver
rampant sable, in the 14th C Zuricher Wappenrolle
(http://ladyivanor.knownworldweb.com/zroadt2r.htm). Some heraldic
beavers did not resemble naturalistic beavers but did maintain
the smooth-furred body, wide tail, and small (or nonexistent)
ears of the beaver. Note, for example, the arms of the town of
Biberach from 1483 (redrawn in Fox-Davies' A Complete Guide to
Heraldry from the Concilum von Constanz), also in the
chapter on "Beasts". Note also the arms of the same town on f.
219 of Siebmacher from 1605, which depict a less stocky beaver
than the other examples, but which still cannot be visually
confused with a sea-dog.

The evidence above appears to strongly indicate that a sea-dog
and a beaver were considered distinct charges in period and
should be given a CD for type difference under RfS X.4.e.

We do note that Fox-Davies, in his discussion of the sea-dog,
states that "There has been considerable uncertainty as to what
the sinister supporter [of the city of Oxford] was intended to
represent. A reference to the original record shows that a beaver
is the real supporter, but the representation of the animal,
which in form has varied little, is very similar to that of a
sea-dog." Certainly the sinister supporter of the city of Oxford
in the emblazon used in Fox-Davies' time does not closely
resemble a sea-dog, although it does resemble Siebmacher's
beaver. A depiction of the emblazon used in Fox-Davies' time
(roughly 100 years ago) is depicted at
http://www.oxfordbusiness.info/civic/old_oxford/town_hall.htm,
which site states that the charge is indeed intended to depict a
beaver. It is not clear what emblazons Fox-Davies is using to
support his assertion that the depictions of the sea-dog and the
beaver are "very similar": it is entirely possible that any "very
similar" emblazons are found after 1600. Given the other evidence
above, we do not feel that Fox-Davies' assertion contravenes the
demonstrated general pattern by which sea-dogs were drawn
distinctly from beavers before 1600. [Elia Stefansdottir,
01/2004,
A-Outlands]
Based on period heraldry, naturalism, and the Pictorial
Dictionary, beavers proper are brown by default. [Adelicia
of Caithness, 02/2004,
A-Caid]

BEAST --
Boar

[winged boars vs. boars] There is one CD for
the number of boars and another for removing the wings:

[A winged wolf] Conflict with ... a wolf ... there is only one
CVD for adding the wings. (LoAR October 1991 p.16).

[Ruaidhri ua Ceallaigh, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[a boar statant sable crined gules] The crining of
the boar refers to the ridge of bristles along its back.
[Rycharde de Northewode, 12/2001,
A-An Tir]
There is a CD between a correctly drawn hippopotamus and a
correctly drawn boar. [Tat'iana Travina, 11/2002,
A-Outlands]

BEAST -- Cat, Lion and
Tiger

[a natural tiger couchant guardant contourny Or
marked sable] The device conflicts with ... Gules, in pale
a Grecian fa�ade argent and a cat couchant to sinister guardant
Or. There is one CD for removing the second primary charge
(the fa�ade). There is no difference for changing the type of
cat, or for the tincture change represented by the markings,
which are less than half the charge. This also conflicts with ...
Gules, a lion dormant contourny Or, a chief wavy argent.
There is one CD for the removing the chief but nothing for the
changing the posture from dormant to couchant guardant. Again,
there is no difference between types of cats. [Sheila
Stuart, 11/2001,
R-Meridies]
[Manx cat rampant] The College could not identify this
animal as a cat, generally believing it appeared to be some sort
of dog, or perhaps a bear. While period heraldic art was by no
means always realistic, it had unmistakable cues to the identity
of the type of animal, especially in stylized artwork. Because
the Manx cat has no tail, one of these cues was lost, making it
all the more important that the remainder of the animal be drawn
recognizably as a cat. Since this drawing was not identifiable,
the armory must be returned. [Zachary Strangeman, 11/2001,
R-Meridies]
[winged lion vs. a lion-dragon] ... and at least another
[CD] for the difference between a winged lion and a lion-dragon.
As seen in the Pictorial Dictionary, a lion-dragon is a
demi-lion conjoined to the tail of a dragon, much like a sea-lion
is a demi-lion conjoined to the tail of a fish. [Maredudd
Angharad ferch Gwenhyfar, 01/2002,
A-Outlands]
[a winged lioness] We have preserved the submitter's
desired blazon of a lioness, since the creature does not have any
of the characteristics that would mark it specifically as a male
lion, such as a mane or a pizzle. However, it should be noted
that this artwork probably would have been perceived as a winged
lion in the culture which originated it, not a winged lioness.
Lions in period could be drawn without a distinct mane, and often
were not drawn with any mane in early period. Also, period lions
were often drawn without a pizzle. [Þórunn Vígadóttir,
06/2002,
A-Trimaris]
There is no type difference between a cat and a natural panther.
[Isabel Margarita de Sotomayor y Pérez de Gerena, 11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
The lion was blazoned as a Saracenic lion, but we do not
blazon the national origin of charges unless such an adjective is
needed to distinguish between different types of charge. This
appears to be a reasonable artistic variant of a lion guardant
and we have so blazoned it. [Scheherazade al-Zahira,
01/2003,
R-East]
[a lion vs. a continental panther] There is one CD, but
not substantial difference, between a heraldic (as opposed to
natural) panther and a lion, just as there is only one CD between
a heraldic tyger and a lion per RfS X.4.e. [Jane Atwell,
02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a cat rampant guardant] This device does not conflict
with ... Per chevron sable and azure, an English panther
rampant reguardant argent pellety incensed Or, an orle
argent. ... Precedent indicates that there is a CD between a
panther and a lion, so there should also be a CD between a
panther and a cat: "If she resubmits with a genuine panther,
charged with large roundels --- better yet, with a Continental
panther --- it should [be a CD from a lion]" (LoAR March
1993). [Catte MacGuffee, 03/2003,
A-Meridies]
We have reblazoned the cats from herissony to
statant, as their backs are not arched enough to be
blazoned herissony. [Garrett Fitzpatrick, 04/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[a lion] The primary charge was originally blazoned as a
Chinese lion. We do not specify the artistic or ethnic
origin of a charge in blazon unless the modified blazon indicates
a significantly different type of charge from the unmodified
blazon. As an example where such an adjective indicates a
significantly different charge, an Oriental dragon is a sinuous
wingless monster, while the default dragon has wings and a much
more compact body.

Because of the wide range of depictions of lions in period, this
maned quadruped with clawed feet, fangs, and a long feathery tail
is sufficiently identifiable as a standard lion, and is therefore
blazoned as such. [Uggedei Mighan Nidun, 07/2003,
A-Artemisia]
Lions' tails, when nowed, are generally blazoned as such,
although this distinction is not worth difference. [Asshelin
Chrystal, 11/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
The leopard was originally blazoned as spotted sable, but
the spots of a natural leopard are usually left as an artistic
detail rather than blazoned explicitly. [Skarpheðinn
Irlandsfari, 11/2003,
A-Drachenwald]
There is no difference for changing the type of feline from a
lynx to a natural leopard. [Jenet Froste, 02/2004,
R-Atlantia]
This charge was originally blazoned as a panther, but it
is neither a heraldic panther (as it lacks the appropriate
incensing) nor a natural panther (as it has the elaborately
tufted tail and legs of a heraldic lion, which would never be
found on a natural panther). It is an appropriately stylized lion
for much of the heraldry in the last two centuries of our period.
While it has either a minimal or nonexistent mane, this lack of
mane is common with heraldic lions in our period. [Racheel
Dominique de Brienne, 03/2004,
A-Middle]

BEAST --
Deer

[three unicorns couchant] There were some
suggestions in the commentary that these unicorns were not in a
standard couchant posture, and perhaps might be better blazoned
as lodged. Lodged is just a synonym for couchant used when
blazoning deer and their close relatives, and there is no
difference in the way lodged and couchant are drawn. The slight
bend in one foreleg is an acceptable artistic variant for any
animal in this posture, although it is found most often with a
long-legged animal such as a deer. [Myfanwy ferch
Rhiannon,11/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
The term springing is, in the SCA, a synonym for
salient used when blazoning deer and their close
relatives, and should not be used for other animals.
[Stierbach, Barony of, 11/2001,
A-Atlantia]

BEAST -- Dog and
Wolf

Per the cover letter for the June 2001 LoAR, there is
no difference between talbots and wolves. This means any
additional difference must be derived from the posture of the
beasts. [Ingilborg Sigmundardóttir, 08/2001,
R-Caid]
[talbots vs. foxes] By long standing precedent, there is
no difference between foxes and talbots. [James Jacob
Talbot, 11/2001,
R-East]
... no difference for the type change from a fox to a wolf ...
[Æthelwynn Rædwulfesdohter, 01/2002,
R-Trimaris]
The LoI suggested that the blazon term ravissant be used.
This term is sometimes used for a wolf which is grasping its prey
by the neck and holding it over its back. However, it might also
be considered appropriate for other sorts of predator/prey
arrangements. Therefore, the term ravissant should not be
used without more explicit arrangement and posture description.
[Sigmundr Hákonsson, 02/2002,
R-Drachenwald]
Some commenters felt that the terrier was hard to identify, but
most were able to identify it as a dog. The particular terrier in
this emblazon has a short muzzle with a long hairy "beard" or
"mustache", which seemed to be the source of the identifiability
issues. Similar small dogs were documented with the submission,
from the Arnolfini Wedding portrait circa 1434 and from the
Unicorn Tapestries circa 1500 (which dog resembles a West
Highland terrier, except that it is tan colored). The period
sources showed dogs with small fluffy tails, so the fact that
this dog's tail is also small (possibly docked) does not require
blazoning. [Helena d'Évreux, 06/2002,
A-West]
A fox proper in the SCA is "Red with black 'socks' and white at
tip of tail", according to the Glossary of Terms. [Piero
Antonio Volpe, 10/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a dachshund] Ammalynne Starchild Haraldsdottir's "May I
Use a Collie In My Arms" (KWHS, Meridies, AS XVII, pp. 45-55)
indicates that the dachshund is probably a period breed of dog.
The dachshund is literally a badger-hound, bred to hunt badgers.
The New Zealand Kennel Club
(http://www.nzkc.org.nz/breeds/dacsh.htm) states that "Earliest
records now available of dogs hunting badgers include several
woodcuts in a book first published in 1560. These dogs had long
bodies, short legs, medium length heads, pendant ears, short
necks and sickle tails." This description matches the emblazon
here. It seems reasonable to register dachshunds as period
charges. If nothing else, the term for the breed is generic
("badger-hound") and closely resembles a period sort of dog used
for hunting badgers. [Marie Boleyn, 11/2002,
R-Middle]
Many commenters noted the similarity of this emblazon to the
Dalmatian breed of dog, and questioned whether that breed was
period. Clarion stated:

Dalmatians are probably a period breed, there is a mention of
spotted dogs in an Elizabethan Journal (National Geographic
Book of Dogs). As the shape of the dog resembles a Dalmatian,
we might as well use it. I would still give its color as
argent spotted sable, especially as modern Dalmatians
can have brown spots as well.

This is sufficient evidence to allow this sort of
depiction of a dog in SCA heraldry, as the type of dog is
compatible with period types of dog. Because the submitter
originally blazoned this dog simply as a dog argent spotted
sable rather than a Dalmatian argent spotted sable we
will continue to blazon it as a dog. [Lyn the
Inquisitive,12/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[an armored wolf] The wolf's armor is not dissimilar from
period dog-armor. Dog-armor was found in various places in Europe
by the end of period, according to documentation provided from
Brassey's Book of Body Armor by Robert Woosnam-Savage and
Anthony Hall. This book also describes other sorts of animal
armor. While the armored animals in the body armor book are all
domestic animals, the arms of Finland, Gules semy of roses
argent, a lion rampant crowned Or brandishing with one human arm
armored a sword and in base a falchion fesswise reversed proper,
incorporate a wild creature wearing armor. All in all it
seems unusual, but acceptable, to have an armored wolf in SCA
armory. Because the armor does not affect the outline of the wolf
and is of the same tincture as the wolf, it is considered a
blazonable artist's detail and is not worth difference.
[Vilk{u,} Urvas, Shire of, 12/2002,
A-Middle]
The dog was originally blazoned as a Bouvier de Flandres
but that is a modern breed. The Zuricher Wappenrolle shows a dog
much like this one, stocky, fuzzy, with short pointed ears and a
short tail, for the family of Toggenburg. Pastoureau blazons this
dog simply as a chien (or dog) in Traité
d'Heraldique. It thus seems appropriate to register this very
similar-looking dog simply as a dog. [Jean Philippe des
Bouviers Noirs, 01/2003,
A-East]
... no type difference between a fox and a wolf. [Ichijou
Jirou Toshiyasu, 01/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a brown vixen proper] The vixen was originally blazoned
as proper, which is defined in the SCA Glossary of Terms
as "Red with black 'socks' and white at tip of tail". The vixen
drawn here is brown with black feet, white chest, and white
tail-tip. This is not acceptable by the following precedent,
which requires that the brown fox proper be all brown:

A falcon proper will be considered to be all brown, not brown
head, wings and back, buff breast with darker spots, and a tail
striped with black; a hare proper will be considered to be all
brown, not brown with white underbelly and tail and pink ears.
This also appears to be more in keeping with period heraldic
practice. (Cover Letter for the October 1995 LoAR)

If period evidence is shown for a brown fox proper
with black socks and white at the tip of the tail (and on the
chest), we may reconsider the return. However, no evidence for
such a period heraldic depiction of a fox has been presented. We
can find find evidence for period foxes that are solid brown (for
example, the canting arms of Die Fuchsen in Siebmacher's 1605
Wappenbuch, fol. 62, Or a brown fox salient
proper). [Apollonia Voss, 01/2003,
R-East]
[A wolf couchant sable] This does not conflict with a
badge of Thylacinus Aquila of Dair Eidand, (Fieldless) A
thylacine couchant gardant proper, orbed and langued gules.
There is one CD for fieldlessness and another CD for the tincture
of the beast. The thylacine proper in Thylacinus' emblazon is
predominantly tan in color. The College's researches also
indicate that this is the expected proper coloration for a
thylacine. [Rhys ab Idwal, 06/2003,
A-Middle]
[enfield vs. talbot] Previous precedent strongly implies
that there is difference between a wolf and an enfield (and thus,
a talbot and an enfield) as long as the forelegs of the enfield
are not obscured by other elements of the design: "The main
difference between a wolf and an enfield is in the
front legs; when one of the beasts is holding a charge with those
legs, it becomes impossible to tell the two creatures apart. We
cannot give a second CD for type of primary here" (LoAR July
1992, pg. 17). There is thus a second CD for changing the talbots
to enfields. [Dafydd ap y Kynith, 09/2003,
A-Meridies]
[a wolf statant argent] The cumulative problems with the
artwork call for redrawing. The wolf is not clearly identifiable
as a wolf. It does not have a wolf's long bushy tail, nor does it
have a wolf's erect pointed ears. The head and neck are slightly
in trian aspect, which causes the neck to effectively disappear,
which also hampers the identifiability of the animal. Only about
half the people who commented on this submission or who viewed
this submission at the Wreath meeting were able to clearly
identify this charge as a canine, and few of them believed it to
be a wolf. [Randolf Garard, 10/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[wolves vs. seawolves] There is a ... CD for changing the
type of secondary charges. Most (albeit not all) "sea-beast"
monsters are constructed as fish-tailed demi-beasts (the top half
of the beast conjoined to a fish's tail). A sea-wolf follows this
general practice: it is a fish-tailed demi-wolf, just as a a
sea-griffin is a fish tailed demi-griffin. As a general rule,
there is a CD between a quadruped (or quadrupedal monster) and a
fish-tailed demi-quadruped. While there are not many explicit
precedents on this topic, one such precedent is found in the LoAR
of January 1992, p. 6: "There is a CD... for the difference
between a sea-griffin and a griffin." [Daniel of Whitby,
11/2003,
A-Ealdormere]
The dogs were originally blazoned as mastiff hounds but
they should simply be termed mastiffs. From a heraldic
perspective, a mastiff and a hound are different types of dogs,
and the phrase mastiff hound is as nonsensical as the
phrase talbot greyhound. [Grimbrand Hundeman,
12/2003,
R-Calontir]

The College was not able to find period evidence about whether
crowned animal's heads could have the crown added or deleted by
artistic license. Some commenters suggested that perhaps crowns
on animal's heads should be considered analogous to collars on
animal's heads. Current precedent gives a CD for collaring an
animal's head (as if the collar were a tertiary charge) but does
not give a CD for adding a collar to a whole animal. However,
these two designs are not truly analogous. A collar on an
animal's head does indeed function as a tertiary charge and thus
must have good contrast with the head on which it lies. This good
contrast enhances the collar's visual prominence. However, a
crown on an animal's head does not generally have such good
contrast. The crown generally either has poor contrast with the
field or with the animal's head. In addition, a crown may be
further obscured by some artistic details of the head on which it
lies, such as ruffled eagle's feathers or a lion's mane.

Without period evidence to the contrary, and because of the
contrast problems inherent in the design of a crown on an
animal's head, it does not seem appropriate to give difference
for adding a crown to a charge consisting only of an animal's
head. [12/2002,
CL]
Most demi-quadrupeds (including winged demi-quadrupeds, such as
demi-griffins) are erect in period armory. Erect appears
to be the default posture for such charges in the real world.
Therefore, erect should be the default posture for
demi-quadrupeds in the SCA. [Thomas von Hessen, 08/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[stag's head erased gorged of a pearled coronet ...
argent] A beast's head gorged of a coronet or collar is
treated by the SCA as having a tertiary charge. "When
[considering a] creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is
much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary
charge." (LoAR of September 1993). A tertiary charge needs to
have good contrast with the underlying charge. This coronet is
the same tincture as the underlying head, so it violates our
rules for contrast. On a full-sized beast, where a collar is
considered an artist's detail rather than a charge in its own
right, it would be acceptable to have a no-contrast detail of
this nature. [Chrestienne de Waterdene, 04/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]

The original blazon was simply a camel. Since there is no
default proper tincture for a camel, it is necessary to specify
that this is a brown camel proper.

The blanket on the back of the camel was originally blazoned as a
saddle, but it is simply a blanket. As drawn in this
submission, the blanket is an artistic detail worth blazoning,
but not a tertiary charge, and therefore does not need good
contrast with the camel. [Aminah of Nithgaard,03/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
Please advise the submitter to draw the squirrel more
identifiably. A squirrel has shorter and smaller forelegs and
larger round hindquarters. Its tail, while full, also tends to be
less shaggy than in this submission. The squirrel's
statant posture does not enhance its identifiability, as
squirrels are sejant erect by default and almost always
found in that posture in period armory. As drawn, this squirrel
risks being confused with another animal. [Isabel Fosson,
04/2002,
A-Middle]
There is a CD between a correctly drawn hippopotamus and a
correctly drawn boar. [Tat'iana Travina, 11/2002,
A-Outlands]
[gorillas] The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
(http://88.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GO/GORI.htm) states:

It was long supposed that the apes encountered on an island off
the west coast of Africa by Hanno, the Carthaginian, were
gorillas, but in the opinion of some of those best qualified to
judge, it is probable that the creatures in question were
really baboons. The first real account of the gorilla appears
to be the one given by an English sailor, Andrew Battel, who
spent some time in the wilds of West Africa during and about
the year 1590; his account being presented in Purchas's
Pilgrimage, published in the year 1613. From this it appears
that Battel was familiar with both the chimpanzee and the
gorilla, the former of which he terms engeco and the latter
pongo-names which ought apparently to be adopted for these two
species in place of those now in use. Between Battel's time and
1846 nothing appears to have been heard of the gorilla or
pongo, but in that year a missionary at the Gabun accidentally
discovered a skull of the huge ape; and in 1847 a sketch of
that specimen, together with two others, came into the hands of
Sir R. Owen, by whom the name Gorilla savagei was proposed for
the new ape in 1848.

We require that animals used in our armory were
known to Western Europeans. In the past this has not been taken
as a requirement that Western Europeans were very familiar as a
group with the animal in question. Rather, it has been taken as a
requirement that the animal had been seen by some explorer or
explorers. It appears from the 1911 Encyclopedia citation that a
Western European explorer had seen a gorilla before 1600. Thus,
this charge may be accepted.

The College should note that the standard heraldic ape, found in
the crest of the Irish family of FitzGerald, has a long tail and
is thus biologically a representation of a type of monkey.
[Seth MacMichael, 02/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
The primary charges were blazoned on the forms and the LoI as
buffalo. We have reblazoned them to ensure that the
correct animal will be drawn from the blazon. The term
buffalo, according to the American Heritage Dictionary
of the English Language, primarily refers to the large-horned
water buffalo and African buffalo. The term bison is used
for a different sort of ruminant noted for its "large
forequarters, a shaggy mane, and a massive head with short curved
horns." Bisons include the American bison (bison bison)
and the European bison or wisent (Bison bonasus). Even
though the word buffalo may properly be used in modern
English to refer to bison, the SCA has previously registered
bison as bison. [Tarasius of Galata,
03/2003,
A-Calontir]
The armadillo is a New World animal. The Oxford English
Dictionary dates the word "armadillo", referring to this animal,
to 1577 and 1594. Armadillos are also found in several regions
occupied by the Spanish long before the end of period. As
armadillos were known to Western Europeans in period they may be
registered, albeit as a step from period style (a "weirdness").
Per the LoAR of August 1999, "New World flora and fauna... are a
discouraged weirdness, but registerable." Armory with a single
step from period style may be registered, and there are no other
steps from period style in this device. [Drogo Rabenwald,
01/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]

Note that all these rats and mice are sable. There are no mice
proper in Stemmario Trivulziano - although there are a number of
other proper brown animate charges in this book including canting
dormice. Dormice are distinctly visibly different from mice or
rats, with bushy tails, and we do not believe that practices for
dormice can necessarily be extended to practices for mice. We
thus continue to uphold the Glossary of Terms entry in Table 3
stating that there is no default proper tincture for mice.

This leaves the question of whether a brown mouse proper should
be allowed. As noted in the LoAR of August 1995 and upheld since
then (including the extensive discussion in the Cover Letter for
the March 2002 LoAR), "Animals which are frequently found as
brown but also commonly appear in other tinctures in the natural
world may be registered as a brown {X} proper (e. g., brown hound
proper, brown horse proper)." Mice are commonly found in a brown
tincture in the natural world, so brown mice proper may be
registered. [Franz Belgrand die Mus, 03/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]

[a
hare passant gules breathing flames] Breathing fire is (to
put it mildly) an unusual attribute for a hare, and may be
considered a weirdness. [Maeve of Trimaris,08/2001,
A-Trimaris]
[a rabbit sejant erect affronty paly argent and azure] The
identifiability of the rabbit is unacceptably compromised by the
combination of the unusual sejant erect affronty posture and the
paly tincture of the rabbit. While there is period armory
depicting animals in multiply divided tinctures such as barry and
checky, the period animals so tinctured are in their most
identifiable postures. Sejant erect affronty is not such a
posture. In addition, period examples of sejant erect affronty,
such as the crest of Scotland, are generally drawn with the
forepaws displayed. Such a rendition is more identifiable than
the depiction in this emblazon, where the forepaws lie entirely
on the rabbit's body. [Tieg ap Gwylym, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[A hare-headed man argent statant to sinister vested
azure] The primary charge was blazoned on the letter of
intent as a hare-headed man, and blazoned by the submitter
as a hare. The charge has a hare's feet and head but a
man's proportions. This is a style of drollery which is found in
period art, but no documentation has been presented for such a
charge in period heraldry. Most of the commentary received on
this submission indicated that it was difficult to identify the
charge. As a result, this may not be accepted without either
documentation for such a charge in heraldry, or a redrawing so
that the charge is clearly either a hare-headed man or a hare.
[Bright Hills, Barony of, 07/2002,
R-Atlantia]

A baton in heraldry
is, by definition, a bend couped. [Lucia Francesca de
Valencia,04/2002,
A-East]
The bendlets sinister are far too enhanced to be acceptable.
Overly enhanced ordinaries have been a reason for return for many
years. As an example: "These bendlets are enhanced so much to
chief that the style becomes unacceptably modern" (LoAR of
January 1992). Scarpes enhanced should issue from most of the way
across the chief, taking up most of the top half of the armory.
These issue from less than halfway across the chief. [Gruffydd
ap Idwallon, 04/2002,
R-Artemisia]
[three barrulets bevilled] The bendlets provided here are
not bevilled. A bend bevilled, as illustrated in
the Pictorial Dictionary, is a bend which has been cut
along a vertical line and offset so that the top edge of the
chiefmost portion of the bend touches the bottom edge of the
basemost portion. Each of the bars here is in a "Z" shape: the
bar is not broken but bent at two sharp angles. No evidence has
been presented that a bar in this shape is a period heraldic
charge or an SCA-compatible heraldic charge.

Moreover, the nested Z-shaped barrulets are each individually
much too thin and much too close together for good heraldic style
for any sort of barrulet. This emblazon is much more like a
single Z-shaped barrulet with white artistic details rather than
three barrulets bevilled. We cannot, however, reblazon this, as
we lack a term of art for a Z-shaped barrulet of this sort.

While the College speculated about whether a charge of this shape
might be a traditional element of Japanese mon, no such example
has been found. The closest that could be found is the
traditional Japanese stream depiction, which uses S-shaped
barrulets.

As this design cannot be blazoned in either Eastern or Western
terms, and as it is not a documentable design in either the East
or the West, it cannot be accepted. [Kusunoki Yoshimoto,
10/2002,
R-East]
Please advise the submitter to draw the bend sinister closer to a
45-degree angle. It is drawn somewhat too steeply in this
emblazon, with the result that it lies low on the field.
[Richard de Frayne, 02/2003,
A-Caid]
[a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed] The bend sinister
was originally blazoned as wavy but did not have enough waves for
that blazon. The concensus of the College appeared to support the
SCA-acceptability of a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed.

Because there is no evidence that a bend sinister
embowed-counterembowed is a period charge, we must determine any
difference from a bend sinister wavy on solely visual grounds. A
bend sinister wavy and a bend sinister embowed-counterembowed do
not appear to be so visually distinct as to warrant
difference.

Thus, this conflicts with ... Vert, on a bend sinister wavy
between two ox heads erased affronty argent a scarpe wavy
azure. There is a CD for changing the type of the secondary
charges. A bend sinister wavy argent charged with a scarpe wavy
azure is heraldically equivalent to a bend sinister azure
fimbriated argent, so there is no additional difference.
[Aíbinn ingen Artáin, 03/2003,
R-Trimaris]
Some commentary asked whether this depiction of an ermine bend,
which charges the bend with five bendwise ermine spots, should be
blazoned as A bend argent charged with five ermine spots
sable rather than a bend ermine. This is an excellent period
depiction of an ermine bend. As noted in the January 2002 LoAR:

There seem to be few ermine bends in period, but they may be
found throughout the heraldic period. Those which [Maister Iago
ab Adam] found are all depicted with the ermine spots tilted
bendwise on the bend.

Maister Iago has provided some additional detailed
information about English depictions of ermine bends throughout
our period:

Out of seven period examples of ermine bends studied, two had
two offset rows of spots (like footprints up the bend), one had
seven spots arranged 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, one was charged and had the
spots arranged to fit around the charges, and three were drawn
as in this submission, with a single row of five spots
(although it should be noted that these last three examples are
all mid-16th C. or later.)

[Catarina de Zaneto Rizo, 04/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a bend engrailed to base Or between two pineapples Or leaved
vert] Pineapples are new world flora and thus considered a
step from period style (a "weirdness"): "New World flora and
fauna... are a discouraged weirdness, but registerable" (LoAR of
August 1999). It appears that having a two-sided ordinary (like a
bend) with a complex line on only the lower side of the bend
should also be considered a "weirdness": "The only period
examples of treating one side of an ordinary which were noted was
that of embattling the upper edge of an ordinary" (LoAR of
November 1990 p. 15). As a result, the armory has two steps from
period style armory ("two weirdnesses") and is stylistically
unacceptable. [Pamela Gattarelli, 04/2003,
R-East]
[a fess of three conjoined fusils] This does not conflict
with Vert, a dance Or between three daisies proper. There
is one CD for removing the secondary daisies. There is another CD
for the difference between a dance and a fess of fusils:

[a bend sinister fusilly vs. a bend sinister dancetty]
Evidence taken from the Dictionary of British Arms
strongly indicates that bends dancetty were not used
interchangeably with bends fusilly; in fact, they were
used by different people and in different ways. Thus there is a
CD for changing the line of division on the bend ... (LoAR
April 2001)

We have also researched the question in the
Dictionary of British Arms in the two bars section,
and also found that bars dancetty were used by different people
from bars lozengy. Unfortunately, the Dictionary of British
Arms is not yet published to the point where we could
research fesses, but the evidence so far found implies strongly
that what is true for bends and bars should also be true for
fesses.

We do note that there is some interchangeability in period
between the somewhat analogous lines
embattled-counterembattled and bretessed, which
also differ by putting the top and bottom lines 180 degrees out
of phase. As a consequence of the period interchangeability, we
do not give difference between embattled-counterembattled
and bretessed. However, the square and indented line
treatments are not exactly analogous, because there is no
"zig-zag" form of the square lines analogous to dancetty. The
"zig zag" form of embattled-counterembattled would look like the
shaft of the SCA charge of a lightning bolt (see the Pictorial
Dictionary for an illustration). There is no period treatment
of an ordinary which makes this sort of square "zig zag". Because
the two sides of a period ordinary
embattled-counterembattled or bretessed are always
separated by at least a thin amount of central ordinary, the two
treatments are much more visually similar, and this may have
contributed to the period confusion between them.

Some commentary on this submission addressed previous precedent
on this topic, which appears to need some clarification
(especially when only excerpts of the precedent were quoted).
Here is some discussion clarifying these past precedents. As
always, we encourage people quoting precedents to consider going
back to the original LoAR and reading the excerpts in context.

As a bend sinister of fusils is an artistic variant of
indented, there is not a CD between it and a bend
sinister indented (LoAR April 2001, p. 13)

This precedent only refers to the lack of difference
between an ordinary indented and an ordinary of fusils -
ordinaries dancetty are not discussed by this precedent at all.
Ordinaries indented and ordinaries of fusils were indeed
interchangeable artistic variants in period. In both an ordinary
indented and an ordinary of fusils, the top and bottom lines are
180 degrees out of phase, and the only difference is whether the
artist decides to touch the "inside" parts of the top and bottom
lines (creating an ordinary of fusils) or whether to leave some
space between them (leaving an ordinary indented).

...the distinction between 'dancetty' and 'indented' when
applied to ordinaries being not one of amplitude, as White Stag
suggests, but a distinction parallel to that between
counterembattled and bretassed (LoAR December 1988)

This precedent did not discuss the determination of
difference between ordinaries dancetty and indented, but solely
discussed the definitions of the two treatments. It makes the
very good point that there is no implication of an amplitude
difference between indented and dancetty (as indicated in some
very post-period treatises). As noted in the discussion above,
the difference between dancetty and indented is indeed "parallel"
to that between counterembattled and bretessed, but it is by no
means exactly the same. [Elena Bertholmeu, 05/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[a bend abased and cotised argent] No documentation was
presented for ordinaries which are both abased and cotised.
Abased ordinaries are so rare in period armory that this
treatment appears to be too far a departure from period heraldic
style to be acceptable without documentation. [Arabella
Mackinnon, 06/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Argent, three bendlets azure each charged with a mullet of
six points palewise Or] Conflict with ..., Per pale gules
and sable, three compass stars in bend sinister Or. Because
armory with three or more bendlets is equivalent to armory with a
bendy field, this armory needs to be considered as if it were
blazoned as Bendy argent and azure, in bend sinister three
mullets of six points Or. Under this interpretation, there is
one CD for changing the field. There is no type difference
between the compass stars and the mullets of six points. Because
of the unusual (and non-period) design of compass stars, with
their four greater and four lesser points, they are considered as
variants of both mullets of four points and mullets of eight
points. There is no type difference between mullets of six points
and mullets of eight points and, hence, no difference between
mullets of six points and compass stars. [Brian Sigfridsson
von Niedersachsen, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[Gules, three bendlets abased argent each charged with a
bendlet azure] Her previous armory submission was very
similar to this but was blazoned as using bendlets abased
azure fimbriated argent. That submission was returned for
using fimbriated charges that were not in the center of the
design, which is forbidden by RfS VIII.3. The submission is
blazoned as using bendlets each charged with a bendlet, and is
proportioned acceptably for that blazon.

Per the LoAR of February 2000, "In this case the blazon can make
a difference: while you cannot 'blazon your way out of' a
conflict, you can 'blazon your way out of' a style problem." In
the colored-in full-sized emblazon, the bendlets are identifiable
as bendlets (rather than part of a complicated bendy field), and
are not debased so far as to be unregisterable. [Ann
Busshenell of Tylehurst, 10/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[Quarterly gules and sable, three bendlets argent]
Conflict with Ysfael ap Briafael, Per bend bendy vert and
argent and vert. Ysfael's device could alternately be
blazoned as Vert, three bendlets enhanced argent, and was
originally submitted under that blazon. Ysfael's registration in
the LoAR of December 2000 stated, "Originally blazoned as
three bendlets enhanced, the blazon above more closely
describes the emblazon." When considering Ysfael's device under
the alternate blazon of Vert, three bendlets enhanced
argent, and comparing it to Tigernach's submission, there is
one CD for changing the field, but the second CD must come from
the change of location of the bendlets from enhanced.

Our original inclination was to give a second CD for enhancing
the bendlets under RfS X.4.g. However, evidence indicates that,
in period, armory using three bendlets enhanced was not distinct
from armory using three bendlets in their default location on the
field. We thus should not give difference between these
designs.

The Dictionary of British Arms (DBA) volume two gives very
few coats of arms using three bendlets enhanced (on p. 117). Most
of these coats are also found belonging to the same family but
with the three bendlets in their default position (on pp.
114-116): the arms of Byron, Argent, three bends [enhanced]
gules, Greeley, Gules, three bends [enhanced] Or, and
Mawnyse/Mauvesin, Gules, three bends [enhanced] argent.
For one of these families, there is scholarship which explicitly
states that the coat with the three bendlets enhanced is a
later version of the coat with three bendlets, rather than
a distinctly different, cadenced, coat. Woodward's A Treatise
on Heraldry British and Foreign discusses the arms of Byron
on p. 132, stating, "What appears to have been the original coat
of Biron viz., Argent, three bendlets gules, is now borne
with the bendlets enhanced (Fr. haussés) i.e. placed
higher in the shield, as in the arms of the poet, Lord
Byron."

The difference between three bendlets and three
bendlets enhanced is thus similar to the difference between
crosses bottony and crosses crosslet. We give no
difference between these crosses because, as discussed in the
LoAR of August 2002, "It is important to recall that the cross
bottony and the cross crosslet are both used to represent the
same charge throughout our period's heraldry. The bottony form is
found predominantly in earlier artwork, and the crosslet form
predominantly in later artwork." The evidence in DBA and Woodward
suggests that three bendlets and three bendlets
enhanced are both used to represent the same armory
throughout our period's heraldry. Just as the cross crosslet
became distinct from the cross bottony after our period, three
bendlets enhanced became distinct from three bendlets after our
period. [Tigernach Mag Samhradh�in, 11/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Or, three bendlets sinister vert] This submission is
heraldically equivalent to Bendy sinister Or and vert. It
thus conflicts with ... Bendy sinister of four vert, argent,
purpure and argent. There's no difference between bendy
sinister of four and bendy sinister of six. The two pieces of
armory share a tincture so X.4.a.ii.b does not apply. This leaves
one CD for changing the tincture of the field, but that is all.
[Gabriel Halte, 12/2003,
R-Drachenwald]

[dunghill
cock] According to J. P. Brooke-Little's An Heraldic
Alphabet, a "dunghill cock" is "the common farmyard cock".
[Barbara Sterling,08/2001,
A-Meridies]
There is a CD between a correctly drawn turkey cock and an
ostrich. The turkey has a much shorter neck and legs and has a
distinctive fan-shaped tail. [William Crome, 09/2002,
A-Calontir]
[cock vs. secretary bird] This is clear of the Society for
Creative Anachronism's badge for the Privy Clerk to Morsulus
Herald, (Tinctureless) A secretary-bird sejant regardant.
[Sagittarius sepentarius]. There is one CD for
tincturelessness. A secretary bird is a thin African raptor, with
a shaggy crest, long tail and long legs. It is unique among hawks
for killing its prey by stamping with its powerful legs and
taloned feet. Because the secretary bird is a charge that was not
used in heraldry in period, difference from a period charge (such
as a cock) is determined on visual grounds by RfS X.4.e. The
secretary bird should thus have at least a CD from a cock.
[Sancha de Flores, 08/2003,
A-East]
... no difference between a dunghill cock and a hen. While the
dunghill cock generally has a more pronounced tail and comb than
the hen, given the period variations with which these charges are
drawn, there is little visual difference between them. No
evidence has been presented or found to indicate that period
heralds would have given difference between these charges.
[Alienor of Iron Mountain, 11/2003,
R-Meridies]
[dunghill cock] This also conflicts with ... Azure, a
simurgh close Or. A simurgh is a monster which is effectively
identical to a peacock. Per this month's cover letter, both
dunghill cocks and peacocks are "poultry-shaped" birds, and
substantial difference cannot be given between them, which would
be necessary to clear this conflict under RfS X.2.

Both dunghill cocks and peacocks have details on their heads (a
crest for the peacock, a comb and wattles for the dunghill cock)
and both have prominent tails. Despite these vague similarities,
they are considered different in period, and consistently drawn
differently in period. They are thus significantly different, and
a CD is given between them. [Alienor of Iron Mountain,
11/2003,
R-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) A rooster vert] This badge is clear of ...
(Fieldless) A raven vert. Per the Cover Letter to the
November 2003 LoAR, there is substantial difference between a
rooster (a "poultry-shaped" bird) and a raven (a "regular-shaped"
bird) when both birds are in period postures and drawn correctly.
The two badges are clear of conflict by RfS X.2.

This is also clear of conflict with ... (Fieldless) A dodo
close vert armed Or. The dodo is not a bird used in period
heraldry, and its eligibility for RfS X.2 is thus determined on a
case by case basis. Because RfS X.2 is not required to clear
these two pieces of armory, we are declining to rule on the
question of the dodo's eligibility for RfS X.2. There is one CD
for fieldlessness, and a second CD under RfS X.4.e between a
rooster and a dodo. While both the rooster and the dodo are
heavy-bodied short-legged birds, the dodo lacks the distinctive
tail, crest and wattles of a rooster. [Carlo Gallucci,
03/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]
[duck vs. dunghill cock] Per the Cover Letter for the
November 2003 LoAR, "swan-shaped" birds and "poultry-shaped"
birds are eligible for X.2 (substantial) difference when they are
drawn correctly and in period postures, which is the case in this
armorial comparison. [Rainald Slater, 03/2004,
A-Ansteorra]

[Cornish chough] There is no
difference between the falcon and the Cornish chough. For more
details on the reason why falcons have no difference from either
ravens or Cornish choughs, see the cover letter. [Muirenn
Faulkner, 01/2002,
R-Ansteorra] [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included
below under "From Wreath: Ravens and
Similar Birds"]
Cornish choughs are black birds with red beak and feet, and so
this is a correctly tinctured proper Cornish chough's leg.
[Leona of Remington, 02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]

The bird in chief was originally blazoned as a
dove. However, the bird lacks the head tuft which is used
to identify a heraldic dove, and is not in the dove's standard
close posture. It has thus been reblazoned as a generic
bird, per the Cover Letter for the January 2000 LoAR: "In
the future I will be stricter about requiring that a bird be
drawn with its defining attributes (i.e., a dove should have a
tuft). Without the defining attributes, the bird may just be
blazoned as 'a bird.'" [Kyne Wynn the Kind, 08/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[Vert, a dove rising wings addorsed Or] We have reblazoned
the dove from volant wings addorsed to rising, as
its somewhat bendwise body posture and legs "planted on the
ground" are indicative of the rising posture. A bird volant
wings addorsed would have a fesswise body posture and the
legs would be tucked up as with a bird in flight.

The device conflicts with Conall Ó Cearnaigh, Vert, a hawk
striking within a bordure embattled Or. There is one CD for
removing the bordure. "There is ... nothing for the difference
between striking and rising" (LoAR January 2001). Per the Cover
Letter for the LoAR of January 2000 (which should be read in its
entirety for a full discussion of the interaction between bird
posture and type difference), "In the future I will be more
likely to grant difference between different types of birds when
they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c)
drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference." Hawks
and doves would be considered different in period when in their
default postures. However, Conall's striking hawk is not in a
period posture, and Sarah's rising dove is not in a standard
period posture for doves. Sarah's dove is drawn with the dove's
heraldic attribute of a tuft at the back of the head. However,
Conall's hawk is also drawn with a tuft or crest at the back of
its head. The body shapes and beak shapes of the two birds as
depicted in their emblazons are not as distinct as one would
expect for good depictions of either type of bird. After visually
comparing the two emblazons, it was the strong opinion of the
people present at the Wreath meeting that there was not much
visual difference between these two birds. As a result, we cannot
give additional difference for changing the type of bird.
[Sarah nic Leod, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
The bird ... was originally blazoned as a dove. However,
it lacks the tuft at the back of the head, which is the defining
characteristic of a heraldic dove. It also has some
characteristics that are not found in heraldic doves: it has a
deeply forked swallow-tail. Because the type of bird is not
clearly apparent, we have reblazoned it as a generic bird.
[Riguallaun map Guoillauc, 09/2003,
A-A-Ansteorra]

An examination of the development of the
various heraldic eagles shows that the direction of the wingtips
of a displayed eagle is entirely a matter of artistic license. To
avoid incorrectly limiting the submitter's ability to display the
arms in reasonable period variants, we will no longer specify
"elevated" and "inverted" when blazoning displayed birds.
[Robert Michael McPharlan, 08/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
The birds were originally blazoned as "ravens displayed". Ravens
are not found in the displayed posture in period heraldry. They
are close by default and almost always found in that posture. The
unusual posture makes them more closely resemble eagles, which
are usually found in the displayed posture. Because of the
difficulty of identifying these birds as any particular sort of
bird, they have been reblazoned as generic birds. See the cover
letter of January 2000 for a more complete discussion of the
interaction between bird type and bird posture.

... There is no type difference between these generic birds and
the double-headed eagles. [Brangwayn Snowden, 01/2002,
R-Middle]
[Vert, an eagle Or] Conflict with Constantinople, Emperor
of, Gules, a double-headed eagle Or. There is one CD for
changing the field, but nothing for changing the type of eagle
from a double-headed to a single-headed eagle. This also
conflicts with Napoleon I, Azure, an eagle displayed contourny
grasping in both claws a thunderbolt Or. There is one CD for
changing the field but nothing for changing the head posture only
of the eagle and nothing for removing the small held thunderbolt.
There are other conflicts as well, but none so illustrious.
[Egil Haraldsson, 05/2002,
R-Meridies]
[three hawks jessed displayed] Some commenters suggested
that these birds be reblazoned to eagles. The birds in this
submission are jessed, which is an identifying attribute for
hawks. They can thus be visually distinguished from eagles.
[Randal Gartnet, 08/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Per bend azure and argent, an eagle striking to sinister,
wings elevated and addorsed, Or and a Lebanon cedar proper]
The previous blazon was Per bend azure and argent, an eagle
rising to sinister, wings elevated and addorsed, Or and a Lebanon
cedar proper. The submitter's request for reblazon asked that
we change the eagle's posture to striking. Striking
is an SCA blazon term describing a hawk terminating its dive by
braking with its wings and extending its claws down in order to,
with luck, send some smaller animal into the afterlife. It is
different from stooping, which depicts the hawk in the
midst of the dive. Striking is similar to the period
posture rising and no difference is given between these
postures, but the SCA has continued to use striking when
the posture seems appropriate. The eagle here is drawn in a
posture that is at least somewhat characteristic of
striking and we may therefore accede to the submitter's
request. [Jamal Damien Marcus, 09/2002,
A-Caid]
[an eagle enflamed] The bird was originally blazoned as a
firebird, which is an SCA-defined charge representing a
folk art design. The SCA firebird resembles a peacock. This
charge is an eagle enflamed (surrounded with small tufts of
flame). We have reblazoned it accordingly.

Conflict ... no difference ... for removing the small tufts of
flame. [Piera da Ferrara, 04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a raven displayed vs. a double-headed eagle displayed]
There is no type difference given between a raven displayed and a
double-headed eagle displayed: "[a raven displayed vs. an
eagle displayed] Even though ravens and eagles were different
birds in period, only eagles were ever displayed.
Therefore there is not a CD for type" (LoAR November 1999; see
also the extensive discussion in the Cover Letter for the January
2000 LoAR). There is also no difference for the number of heads:
"...(not too dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for the
difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)" (LoAR
October 1990 p.14). [Njall Randvesson, 04/2003,
R-East]
[an eagle Or] We have removed the explicit armed
sable from the blazon; this is too small a detail to mention
on an eagle, and is invisible from any distance. [Heinrich von
Melk, 05/2003,
R-Atlantia]

There is no difference between the
falcon and the Cornish chough. For more details on the reason why
falcons have no difference from either ravens or Cornish choughs,
see the cover letter. [Muirenn Faulkner, 01/2002,
R-Ansteorra] [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included
below under "From Wreath: Ravens and
Similar Birds"]
... there is another CD for changing the type of bird from an owl
close to a falcon close. [Falco de Jablonec, 06/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
There is another CD for changing the type of bird from a stork
statant (which is equivalent to a stork close) and a falcon
close. [Falco de Jablonec, 06/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
There is no posture difference between birds naiant and birds
close. However, there is another CD for changing the type of bird
from a swan naiant to a falcon close. [Falco de Jablonec,
06/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[three hawks jessed displayed] Some commenters suggested
that these birds be reblazoned to eagles. The birds in this
submission are jessed, which is an identifying attribute for
hawks. They can thus be visually distinguished from eagles.
[Randal Gartnet, 08/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Per bend azure and argent, an eagle striking to sinister,
wings elevated and addorsed, Or and a Lebanon cedar proper]
The previous blazon was Per bend azure and argent, an eagle
rising to sinister, wings elevated and addorsed, Or and a Lebanon
cedar proper. The submitter's request for reblazon asked that
we change the eagle's posture to striking. Striking
is an SCA blazon term describing a hawk terminating its dive by
braking with its wings and extending its claws down in order to,
with luck, send some smaller animal into the afterlife. It is
different from stooping, which depicts the hawk in the
midst of the dive. Striking is similar to the period
posture rising and no difference is given between these
postures, but the SCA has continued to use striking when
the posture seems appropriate. The eagle here is drawn in a
posture that is at least somewhat characteristic of
striking and we may therefore accede to the submitter's
request. [Jamal Damien Marcus, 09/2002,
A-Caid]
There is a second CD for the type difference between a falcon and
a wren.

We have no reason to believe the two charges would not have been
considered distinct in period. They are certainly different types
of bird (the falcon is a raptor and a wren is a small perching
bird), and real-world heraldry generally distinguishes between
these types of bird, at least in blazon. Falcons and wrens are
certainly quite visually distinct. A wren has a thin pointed
beak, and horizontal body posture with its tail pointing straight
up. A falcon has a hooked raptor's beak, and vertical body
posture with its tail pointing downwards. The falcon in this
device is further identified as a falcon or hawk by its prominent
bells and jesses. [Kateline Hicch, 09/2002,
A-East]
[Ermine, a hawk striking wings displayed sable tailed and in
chief three triquetras gules] Conflict with Malutka sep
Srebnitska, Ermine, a turkey vulture [Cathartes aura]
displayed, dexter wing erect, sinister wing inverted, proper.
There is one CD for adding the triquetras.

There is no type difference between a turkey vulture and a hawk.
The turkey vulture is a New World bird, which is not a period
heraldic charge. Per RfS X.4.e, when determining difference from
a non-period charge, difference is determined by a visual
comparison. A visual comparison shows that there is insufficient
difference between a turkey vulture and a hawk to give difference
on solely visual grounds.

There is no difference between the visually similar postures of
displayed dexter wing erect and striking wings displayed. There
is no difference for changing tincture, as less than half the
charge has changed in tincture. Malutka's turkey vulture is black
with a red head, and Morgan's hawk is black with a red tail. The
head and the tail combined make up less than half the tincture of
these birds. [Morgan mac Máeláin, 09/2002,
R-Caid]
[A hawk striking maintaining in its talons a compass star
sable] Conflict with ... Argent, a raven rising regardant
wings disclosed proper, maintaining in the dexter claw a sword
gules. There is a CD for changing the field. There is no
difference between a hawk and a raven (see the discussion in the
January 2002 cover letter). There is no difference in posture
between these birds except for the head position, which is
insufficient for posture difference by RfS X.4.h. There is no
difference for changing the maintained charge.

This is also a visual conflict by RfS X.5 with ... (Fieldless)
A raven striking sustaining a spur rowel of eight points
sable. The only obvious visual difference between these two
pieces of armory is the angle of the bird's wings (which is never
worth difference) and the piercing of the spur rowel. Only on
close comparison is it clear that in Jared's case the spur rowel
is co-primary while in Ricart's case the compass star is a
maintained charge. The visual similarities of two designs are so
close as to give an unavoidable visual conflict. [Ricart
Berenguer Falcón, 03/2003,
R-Meridies]
[Vert, a dove rising wings addorsed Or] We have reblazoned
the dove from volant wings addorsed to rising, as
its somewhat bendwise body posture and legs "planted on the
ground" are indicative of the rising posture. A bird volant
wings addorsed would have a fesswise body posture and the
legs would be tucked up as with a bird in flight.

The device conflicts with Conall Ó Cearnaigh, Vert, a hawk
striking within a bordure embattled Or. There is one CD for
removing the bordure. "There is ... nothing for the difference
between striking and rising" (LoAR January 2001). Per the Cover
Letter for the LoAR of January 2000 (which should be read in its
entirety for a full discussion of the interaction between bird
posture and type difference), "In the future I will be more
likely to grant difference between different types of birds when
they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period posture, (c)
drawn correctly, and (d) there is some visual difference." Hawks
and doves would be considered different in period when in their
default postures. However, Conall's striking hawk is not in a
period posture, and Sarah's rising dove is not in a standard
period posture for doves. Sarah's dove is drawn with the dove's
heraldic attribute of a tuft at the back of the head. However,
Conall's hawk is also drawn with a tuft or crest at the back of
its head. The body shapes and beak shapes of the two birds as
depicted in their emblazons are not as distinct as one would
expect for good depictions of either type of bird. After visually
comparing the two emblazons, it was the strong opinion of the
people present at the Wreath meeting that there was not much
visual difference between these two birds. As a result, we cannot
give additional difference for changing the type of bird.
[Sarah nic Leod, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]

[A bird close gules] There is ...
nothing for the difference between a generic bird and another
sort of bird. [Tatiana Heinemann, 08/2001,
R-Trimaris]
An examination of the development of the various heraldic eagles
shows that the direction of the wingtips of a displayed eagle is
entirely a matter of artistic license. To avoid incorrectly
limiting the submitter's ability to display the arms in
reasonable period variants, we will no longer specify "elevated"
and "inverted" when blazoning displayed birds. [Robert Michael
McPharlan, 08/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
There is no CD for type for ravens vs generic birds ...
[Robert of Gresewode, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[a bird displayed] The bird was originally blazoned as a
martlet, but as drawn it was not clearly a martlet. It was
not in the martlet's default close position and does not show the
martlet's leg stumps. It has therefore been reblazoned as a
generic bird. [Aidan of Aran, 04/2002,
A-Middle]
The bird in chief was originally blazoned as a dove.
However, the bird lacks the head tuft which is used to identify a
heraldic dove, and is not in the dove's standard close posture.
It has thus been reblazoned as a generic bird, per the
Cover Letter for the January 2000 LoAR: "In the future I will be
stricter about requiring that a bird be drawn with its defining
attributes (i.e., a dove should have a tuft). Without the
defining attributes, the bird may just be blazoned as 'a bird.'"
[Kyne Wynn the Kind, 08/2002,
A-Artemisia]
The birds in chief were originally blazoned as ravens but they
are not in a standard period posture for ravens and they do not
have any particularly defining attributes of ravens. They have
thus been reblazoned as generic birds. [Wulf Gray Wind,
09/2002,
A-East]
[Three birds close conjoined in annulo sable] These birds
are conjoined in annulo. The only conjoining is where the beak of
each bird touches the tail of the bird in front of it. This
emblazon thus meets the objections stated in the previous return.
The outline of the group is somewhat more triangular than round,
because the birds have straight backs, but this is an acceptable
group of birds conjoined in annulo. [Bran Trefonin,
01/2003,
A-Atlantia]
The bird was originally blazoned as a nightingale.
However, the drawing is not clearly a nightingale; it has a
significantly longer tail than a nightingale, and has some other
artistic details (such as wing bars) which are not present on a
nightingale. According to Peterson's A Field Guide to the
Birds of Britain and Europe, a nightingale in nature is a
brown bird with a buff underside and rusty tail. We have thus
blazoned this bird as a generic bird. [Arlindis o
Gordon, 02/2003,
A-An Tir]
[a bird displayed] The bird was originally blazoned as a
raven, but it is neither in the raven's default posture
nor is it otherwise clearly identifiable as a raven. We have thus
blazoned it as a generic bird. [Bronwyn Mewer,
02/2003,
A-An Tir]
The College generally felt that this bird, drawn in some sort of
early period artistic stylization, was not recognizable as a
raven. However, this charge is clearly identifiable as a bird
close, albeit a stylized one. We have therefore reblazoned it as
a bird. [Brenna of Storvik and Gauss Magnússon,
04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
Note that a generic bird does not have a defined proper
tincture. [Lachlan McBean, 08/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
The bird ... was originally blazoned as a dove. However,
it lacks the tuft at the back of the head, which is the defining
characteristic of a heraldic dove. It also has some
characteristics that are not found in heraldic doves: it has a
deeply forked swallow-tail. Because the type of bird is not
clearly apparent, we have reblazoned it as a generic bird.
[Riguallaun map Guoillauc, 09/2003,
A-A-Ansteorra]
In the last months we have often received commentary suggesting
that some charge should be reblazoned from a specific sort of
bird to a generic bird (e.g., reblazoning a hawk as a
bird). We remind the College that we should only reblazon
a specific sort of bird as a generic bird when the specific bird
truly cannot be identified as such. We also remind the College
that the reblazon to a generic bird has unfortunate side effects
for conflict. As noted on the LoAR of April 1998, "Blazoned on
the LoI as [a specific type of bird], as drawn it is not clearly
any species of bird, so we have reblazoned it as a generic bird.
Unfortunately, generic birds conflict with all birds, so this
conflicts with ..." When one proposes to reblazon an
imperfectly-drawn "hawk" as a generic "bird", it would lose an
often-critical type CD from past or future submissions using
swans, herons, chickens, peacocks, ostriches, hummingbirds,
penguins, and so forth. Never forget that the suggestion to
reblazon a specific bird as a generic bird is also a proposal to
reward a poor artist with an unwontedly huge slice of armorial
space. When we reflect on the quality of much period heraldic
artwork, which is rarely precise in its depiction of birds or
other animals, I think we can all agree that birds should only be
reblazoned as "generic" birds when there is no other
alternative.

We have also continued to receive commentary indicating that
ravens that are not drawn as "hairy" birds should be reblazoned
as generic birds. This suggestion does not match period armorial
style, which often depicts ravens as smooth-feathered birds.
Please refer to the cover letter to the January 2002 LoAR, which
discusses this matter in detail, including citations in
commonly-available heraldry books showing specific examples of
smooth-feathered/non-hairy corbies in period heraldic art.
[10/2003,
CL]

BIRD --
Goose

While swans are rousant by default, their barnyard
cousins, geese, are close by default. Note, for example, the
canting arms of Die Gansen on fol. 150 of Siebmacher's 1605
Wappenbuch, and von Ganse on fol. 182 of the same volume.
Each of these canting coats uses a goose close as the sole charge
on the armory. [Effie Little, 03/2003,
A-An Tir]
By examination of period armory, ducks and geese are close by
default - this is by far the most common posture for either of
these birds. Ducks and geese do not share the same default
posture as the larger and more aggressive swan, which is rousant
by default. [Svana ormstunga Vermundardottir, 11/2003,
A-Atenveldt]

[Argent, a loon naiant contourny sable]
The loon was originally blazoned as sable marked argent,
but it is predominantly sable on the color emblazon. The
depiction of this loon on the mini-emblazon included details that
closely resemble the markings of the black and white bird that
the Americans call a Common Loon and the British call a Great
Northern Diver, but most of the details that would be white in a
naturalistic depiction of this species were tinctured sable in
the color emblazon. If we blazon this loon as sable marked
argent, it would likely be drawn by an artist as a
naturalistic loon/diver, and would then have too many argent
markings against the argent field to have acceptable contrast. We
have thus blazoned the loon as sable. Per the LoAR of
March 2000, concerning an orca proper (black and white) on an
argent field, "The argent portions of the orca cannot be placed
on an argent field." The same constraints apply to a Common Loon
in its natural colors. [Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[loon vs. raven] No evidence has been presented or found
indicating that a loon is a charge found in period heraldry.
Thus, per RfS X.4.e, we must determine the type difference
between a raven and a loon on visual grounds. A loon is similar
to a duck, except that it has a thin pointed bill rather than a
duck-bill. The visual difference between the loon and the raven
merits significant difference ... [Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[loon vs. quail] Per the LoAR of March 2002, "Quails are
round birds, shaped much more like a hen than like a corbie...
The European quail, like the quail in Kathren's badge, has a
round body. However, it is worth noting that the quail in
Kathren's badge is distinctly a California or Gambel's quail, New
World birds with a distinctive feather shaped like an inverted
comma atop their heads. Old World quails do not have this
distinctive crest." Neither the loon nor the California or
Gambel's quail are found in period heraldry, and thus the
difference between them must be determined visually per RfS
X.4.e. There is certainly sufficient visual difference between
the loon and the New World quail to give a CD between them.
[Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
Note that this loon does not clearly and obviously fall into any
of the categories of birds set forth in this month's cover
letter. While the loon resembles the "swan-shaped" birds more
than any of the other types of birds found in period heraldry, it
lacks the rounded bill of a "swan-shaped" bird. While a loon does
have webbed feet, its feet are not visible when is naiant (as in
this submission), and thus a naiant loon also lacks the prominent
webbed feet of a "swan-shaped" bird. The armorial comparisons
between this submission and ... do not require us to determine
whether loons are substantially different from either ravens or
(New World) quail, and thus we are not ruling on those questions
at this time. [Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]

[a bird displayed] The bird was
originally blazoned as a martlet, but as drawn it was not
clearly a martlet. It was not in the martlet's default close
position and does not show the martlet's leg stumps. It has
therefore been reblazoned as a generic bird. [Aidan of
Aran, 04/2002,
A-Middle]
Some commenters inquired about the depiction of the martlet in
this emblazon. The College should note that martlets across
Europe are drawn in varying depictions. The standard English
depiction is based on a swallow, with its slim body and long
forked tail. However, the depictions on the continent and even in
Scotland more resemble a European blackbird (with a thrush-like
shape) or a lark. Neither of these birds have long forked tails,
and both types of bird have stouter bodies than the swallow. In
all cases, a martlet is drawn without visible feet, although the
way that this 'footlessness' is depicted also varies from period
emblazon to period emblazon. Martlets may be drawn with forked
'leg stubs', couped 'leg stubs', and probably other leg
variations. The important thing in drawing a martlet is that the
legs should not end in clawed bird's feet. [Renee
Claymore, 11/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[a martlet volant "brown"] The martlet is tinctured in
brown, and was originally blazoned as proper. However, the
martlet is a heraldic (rather than natural) creature, and does
not have a defined proper tincture. Because brown may not be used
in SCA heraldry except as a proper tincture, this may not be
registered. [Tamar bas Reuven, 08/2003,
R-East]

An examination of the development of the
various heraldic eagles shows that the direction of the wingtips
of a displayed eagle is entirely a matter of artistic license. To
avoid incorrectly limiting the submitter's ability to display the
arms in reasonable period variants, we will no longer specify
"elevated" and "inverted" when blazoning displayed birds.
[Robert Michael McPharlan, 08/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[a swan rousant vs. a stork passant, wings elevated and
addorsed] There is one CD ... and another for the change of
type of bird between a swan and a stork. While both birds do have
long necks, they appear to have been considered distinct types of
bird in period. Moreover, the stork is visually distinct from the
swan, both in general and in ... emblazon. The stork has much
longer legs and a spearlike beak. [William Lindsay,
11/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[a penguin statant affronty, head to dexter vs. a vulture
close affronty] Penguins are arguably in their most
identifiable posture when in this posture (statant affronty, head
to dexter.) The most identifying portions of the vulture (the
head and neck ruff) and penguin (flipper wings) are easily
visible. Since penguins are not birds found in period heraldry,
the difference between the penguin and vulture must be determined
on visual grounds. A second CD is available for changing the type
of bird. [Tylar of Lochmere, 04/2002,
A-Atlantia]
Herons are close by default, so the posture need not be blazoned.
[Herons Reach, Shire of, 08/2002,
A-An Tir]
There is a CD between a correctly drawn turkey cock and an
ostrich. The turkey has a much shorter neck and legs and has a
distinctive fan-shaped tail. [William Crome, 09/2002,
A-Calontir]
There is a second CD for the type difference between a falcon and
a wren.

We have no reason to believe the two charges would not have been
considered distinct in period. They are certainly different types
of bird (the falcon is a raptor and a wren is a small perching
bird), and real-world heraldry generally distinguishes between
these types of bird, at least in blazon. Falcons and wrens are
certainly quite visually distinct. A wren has a thin pointed
beak, and horizontal body posture with its tail pointing straight
up. A falcon has a hooked raptor's beak, and vertical body
posture with its tail pointing downwards. The falcon in this
device is further identified as a falcon or hawk by its prominent
bells and jesses. [Kateline Hicch, 09/2002,
A-East]
The demi-crane was originally blazoned as a crane
displayed. While this is a Far Eastern stylization of an
entire crane, from the Western perspective this crane lacks the
bottom of a bird displayed: no tail or legs are visible.
Therefore, this is, for purposes of SCA heraldry, a demi-crane.
[Ise no Kusunoki Kametsuru, 09/2002,
R-Calontir]
The bird was originally blazoned as a nightingale.
However, the drawing is not clearly a nightingale; it has a
significantly longer tail than a nightingale, and has some other
artistic details (such as wing bars) which are not present on a
nightingale. According to Peterson's A Field Guide to the
Birds of Britain and Europe, a nightingale in nature is a
brown bird with a buff underside and rusty tail. We have thus
blazoned this bird as a generic bird. [Arlindis o
Gordon, 02/2003,
A-An Tir]
[cock vs. secretary bird] This is clear of the Society for
Creative Anachronism's badge for the Privy Clerk to Morsulus
Herald, (Tinctureless) A secretary-bird sejant regardant.
[Sagittarius sepentarius]. There is one CD for
tincturelessness. A secretary bird is a thin African raptor, with
a shaggy crest, long tail and long legs. It is unique among hawks
for killing its prey by stamping with its powerful legs and
taloned feet. Because the secretary bird is a charge that was not
used in heraldry in period, difference from a period charge (such
as a cock) is determined on visual grounds by RfS X.4.e. The
secretary bird should thus have at least a CD from a cock.
[Sancha de Flores, 08/2003,
A-East]
[a winged owl's head cabossed] Some members of the College
did not find the owl's head as drawn here to be identifiable. We
note that this is a very stylized depiction of an owl's head,
without a clearly drawn beak or eyes.

Those members of the College who were able to identify the owl's
head all perceived this "winged owl's head cabossed" as a
depiction of an owl flying straight out of the shield towards the
viewer. While the SCA does register many winged objects, such as
winged swords, they generally cannot be perceived as anything
other than a winged object. When one adds wings to a bird's head
cabossed, one does not perceive a winged bird's head, but one
perceives an entire bird seen flying towards the viewer, which is
to say, a bird volant affronty. Previous precedent notes
that "The posture volant affronty has been ruled
unsuitable for use in heraldry on at least two occasions ... on
the grounds that it is "inherently unidentifiable"... in those
case[s] the returns involved birds... [This return was of a
demi-pegasus.]" (LoAR February 1998 p. 18). [Mora de
Buchanan, 08/2003,
R-Caid]
[(Fieldless) A rooster vert] This is also clear of
conflict with ... (Fieldless) A dodo close vert armed Or.
The dodo is not a bird used in period heraldry, and its
eligibility for RfS X.2 is thus determined on a case by case
basis. Because RfS X.2 is not required to clear these two pieces
of armory, we are declining to rule on the question of the dodo's
eligibility for RfS X.2. There is one CD for fieldlessness, and a
second CD under RfS X.4.e between a rooster and a dodo. While
both the rooster and the dodo are heavy-bodied short-legged
birds, the dodo lacks the distinctive tail, crest and wattles of
a rooster. [Carlo Gallucci, 03/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]

An owl affronty has been ruled to be equivalent
to an owl close (and thus therefore, also to an owl close and
contourny): "The 'blobbiness' of the owl's body, and the fact
that the owl is guardant in all cases, leads me to conclude that
there is no visual difference for turning the owl's body
affronty" (LoAR of October 1992). Therefore there is no
meaningful posture difference for turning the charges in chief
(which are contourny) to this owl affronty, as the owl affronty
is equivalent to an owl contourny. [Ambra Biancospina,
04/2002,
R-Middle]
[a brown owl] The owl in the device was originally
blazoned as a horned owl, but this overspecifies the type
of owl. This sort of detail should be specified as an artist's
note, not as a blazon detail. In Europe, the eagle owl is a large
owl found over most of Europe which is brown in tincture (with
darker brown spots.) Three other sorts of owl (the short-eared,
Scops, and long-eared owls) are predominantly brown. It therefore
seems reasonable that an owl proper could be depicted as brown.
Per the Cover Letter of the October 1995 LoAR, "animals which are
frequently found as brown but also commonly appear in other
tinctures in the natural world may be registered as a brown {X}
proper (e.g., brown hound proper, brown horse proper)."
[Leofwynn Kyndheir, 05/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
... there is another CD for changing the type of bird from an owl
close to a falcon close. [Falco de Jablonec, 06/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
The owl was blazoned as affronty on the Letter of Intent
but the overall posture of the owl is mostly a side view, with
only the head facing forward. This close guardant posture
is the default for an owl and need not be blazoned.

Please advise the submitter to make some changes to the artwork.
The submitter should be careful to draw the owl's body entirely
in profile, rather than having the chest portion tilted slightly
towards the viewer. An owl in a truly three-quarter view (also
known as "trian aspect") would have had to be returned for a
nonperiod heraldic posture. [Alfgeirr skytja, 03/2003,
A-Calontir]
[an owl argent] The owl was originally blazoned as a
snowy owl. As noted in the LoAR of January 1993, "The owls
were blazoned on the LOI as snowy owls argent marked
sable, which is excessive precision in medieval blazon: the
black spots were so small as to be heraldically negligible, and
the exact type of owl here makes no difference. [The owl was
registered with an argent tincture.]" We have thus
reblazoned this owl accordingly. We also note that, even if a
snowy owl could be blazoned, the distinguishing black
spots are not present in this emblazon. [Keja Tselebnika,
03/2003,
A-Ealdormere]
[an owl contourny] Conflict with Ayslynn MacGuraran,
Azure, a snowy owl affronty proper grasping in its dexter
talon three roses Or, slipped and leaved vert, and in its
sinister talon two of the same, within an orle Or. There is
one CD for changing the field. "There is not a CD between an owl
close guardant and an owl close affronty" (LoAR of
October 2000). The same applies to an owl close guardant
contourny (as in this submission) and an owl close affronty (as
in Ayslynn's device). There is no difference for removing the
small held charges. [Marko Evanovich Panfilov, 04/2003,
R-Outlands]
[a winged owl's head cabossed] Some members of the College
did not find the owl's head as drawn here to be identifiable. We
note that this is a very stylized depiction of an owl's head,
without a clearly drawn beak or eyes.

Those members of the College who were able to identify the owl's
head all perceived this "winged owl's head cabossed" as a
depiction of an owl flying straight out of the shield towards the
viewer. While the SCA does register many winged objects, such as
winged swords, they generally cannot be perceived as anything
other than a winged object. When one adds wings to a bird's head
cabossed, one does not perceive a winged bird's head, but one
perceives an entire bird seen flying towards the viewer, which is
to say, a bird volant affronty. Previous precedent notes
that "The posture volant affronty has been ruled
unsuitable for use in heraldry on at least two occasions ... on
the grounds that it is "inherently unidentifiable"... in those
case[s] the returns involved birds... [This return was of a
demi-pegasus.]" (LoAR February 1998 p. 18). [Mora de
Buchanan, 08/2003,
R-Caid]
[Azure, three owls within a bordure argent] This does not
conflict with Catalina of Tir Ysgithr, Azure, three quail and
a bordure argent. Per this month's Cover Letter discussion of
birds and substantial difference, owls are "regular-shaped" birds
and (European) quail are "poultry-shaped" birds. There is thus
substantial difference between "poultry-shaped" European quails
in a period posture (the default close posture) and
"regular-shaped" owls in a period posture (the default close
guardant posture).

The quails in Catalina's device are the new-world California or
Gambel's quails, with a comma-shaped feather topping their heads,
so their eligibility for substantial difference must be
determined on a case by case basis. Because the California quail
resembles a European quail very closely except for the
comma-shaped crest, it is as different from an owl as a European
quail would be - or even more so, since an owl does not have a
crest of this sort. Thus, it seems appropriate to give
substantial difference between California/Gambel's quails and
owls. These two pieces of armory are thus clear of conflict under
RfS X.2. [Megge de Northwode, 11/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[two owls addorsed] Some of the commentary noted the
precedent stating that there is no difference between an owl
turned to dexter and an owl affronty, and wondered if that meant
there was no difference between an owl turned to dexter and an
owl turned to sinister. The precedent in question, on the LoAR of
August 1992, states, "The owl's posture has slightly changed,
from statant close guardant to statant close
affronty (which is guardant by definition). The
'blobbiness' of the owl's body, and the fact that the owl is
guardant in all cases, leads me to conclude that there is no
visual difference for turning the owl's body affronty." Conflict
is not transitive: if A conflicts with B and B conflicts with C,
it is not required that A must conflict with C. In this case,
while there may not be a CD between an owl affronty and an owl
turned to dexter, and there may not be a CD between an owl
affronty and an owl turned to sinister, there is sufficient
visual difference to allow a CD between an owl turned to dexter
and an owl turned to sinister. One can thus meaningfully give a
posture CD between respectant owls and addorsed owls, ...
[Sigurd Grunewald, 11/2003,
A-Meridies]

[(Fieldless) A peacock Or the tail marked
gules] The markings on the tail of the peacock are the "eyes"
of the tail feathers. However, we are hesitant to use the term
eyed in the blazon, as was done in the Letter of Intent.
The term eyed could be confused with the heraldic term
orbed, which refers to the bird's eyes. [Sunnifa
Eiríksdóttir, 10/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[Azure, a simurgh close argent] The simurgh has been
explicitly blazoned as close, since simurghs have no
default posture. The simurgh is not visually distinct enough from
a peacock to be worth difference. Since the simurgh is not a
charge found in period heraldry, difference is determined on
visual grounds only under RfS X.4.e. This therefore conflicts
with ... Azure, in pale a peacock passant close between two
roses, all argent. There is one CD for removing the roses.
This also conflicts with a badge of ... Sable a peacock close
maintaining in its beak a lotus with seedpod argent, slipped and
leaved vert. There is one CD for changing the field but
nothing for removing the very small maintained lotus. [Tavia
of Persia, 05/2002,
R-Outlands]
[an eagle enflamed] The bird was originally blazoned as a
firebird, which is an SCA-defined charge representing a
folk art design. The SCA firebird resembles a peacock. This
charge is an eagle enflamed (surrounded with small tufts of
flame). We have reblazoned it accordingly.

Conflict ... no difference ... for removing the small tufts of
flame. [Piera da Ferrara, 04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[two peacocks respectant Or] Peacocks are close by
default, with their tails extending behind them, and closed up
(rather than being fanned out). The SCA has blazoned some
peacocks close as pavonated to base (indicating that the
tail points downwards), but the exact orientation of the tail of
a peacock close is an artistic choice rather than a heraldic
distinction. A peacock close could legitimately be drawn with the
tail pointing straight behind the peacock, to base, or even
somewhat towards the chief, as long as the tail is not fanned
out. The exact orientation of the tail of a peacock close thus
does not need to be explicitly blazoned and is not worth
difference. A peacock in his pride, which is affronty with
its tail fanned out and held up behind its body, must be
explicitly blazoned. There is a posture CD between a peacock
close and a peacock in his pride.

Because there is no difference between a default peacock and a
peacock pavonated to base, the device conflicts with ...
Gules, two peacocks pavonated to base respectant and a
pomegranate Or. There is only one CD for removing the
pomegranate.

The peacock tails in this emblazon are held so that they point
behind the peacocks and the end of each tail curves to chief.
This is a Byzantine and Eastern stylization of a peacock. Some
members of the College felt that the identifiability of the
peacocks had been diminished by the unusual tail depiction.
Although we feel that these peacocks are adequately recognizable
in a Western artistic context, please advise the submitter to be
careful to draw the peacocks so that they are clearly
identifiable in the context of Western heraldic art.

We also note that the submitter has drawn the peacocks' tails
with substantial amounts of detail in argent, vert, and sable.
Please advise the submitter to draw the tails of the Or peacocks
so that they are more predominantly Or. [A'ishah bint Rashid
al-Andalusi, 08/2003,
R-Caid]
[dunghill cock] This also conflicts with ... Azure, a
simurgh close Or. A simurgh is a monster which is effectively
identical to a peacock. Per this month's cover letter, both
dunghill cocks and peacocks are "poultry-shaped" birds, and
substantial difference cannot be given between them, which would
be necessary to clear this conflict under RfS X.2.

Both dunghill cocks and peacocks have details on their heads (a
crest for the peacock, a comb and wattles for the dunghill cock)
and both have prominent tails. Despite these vague similarities,
they are considered different in period, and consistently drawn
differently in period. They are thus significantly different, and
a CD is given between them. [Alienor of Iron Mountain,
11/2003,
R-Meridies]

[a corbie contourny sable] This does not
conflict with a badge of Kathren of Sandesward, Argent, a
legless quail close to sinister reguardant sable. There is
... another [CD] for the difference between a corbie and a quail.
Quails are round birds, shaped much more like a hen than like a
corbie. Hens and corbies are distinct in period, so quails and
corbies should be distinct as well.

The European quail, like the quail in Kathren's badge, has a
round body. However, it is worth noting that the quail in
Kathren's badge is distinctly a California or Gambel's quail, New
World birds with a distinctive feather shaped like an inverted
comma atop their heads. Old World quails do not have this
distinctive crest. [Ansger von Hohenkrewe, 03/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[Azure, three quail and a bordure argent] This does not
conflict with ... Azure, three swallows migrant within a
bordure argent. There is one CD for the change in posture
from close to migrant and a second CD for the difference in type
between quail and swallows. Both quail and swallows are found in
period armory. They appear to be considered distinct in period
and most certainly have significant visual difference. Quails are
round birds with short tails and swallows are lean birds with
long forked tails.

Please note that the comma-shaped head feathers drawn on the
quails in this emblazon are an attribute of certain species of
quail native to the southwest portion of North America. The
European quail does not have any sort of distinguishing crest.
The comma-shaped head feather, while not a bar to registration,
should not be considered a period heraldic identifier for a
quail. [Catalina of Tir Ysgithr, 10/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[loon vs. quail] Per the LoAR of March 2002, "Quails are
round birds, shaped much more like a hen than like a corbie...
The European quail, like the quail in Kathren's badge, has a
round body. However, it is worth noting that the quail in
Kathren's badge is distinctly a California or Gambel's quail, New
World birds with a distinctive feather shaped like an inverted
comma atop their heads. Old World quails do not have this
distinctive crest." Neither the loon nor the California or
Gambel's quail are found in period heraldry, and thus the
difference between them must be determined visually per RfS
X.4.e. There is certainly sufficient visual difference between
the loon and the New World quail to give a CD between them.
[Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[Azure, three owls within a bordure argent] This does not
conflict with Catalina of Tir Ysgithr, Azure, three quail and
a bordure argent. Per this month's Cover Letter discussion of
birds and substantial difference, owls are "regular-shaped" birds
and (European) quail are "poultry-shaped" birds. There is thus
substantial difference between "poultry-shaped" European quails
in a period posture (the default close posture) and
"regular-shaped" owls in a period posture (the default close
guardant posture).

The quails in Catalina's device are the new-world California or
Gambel's quails, with a comma-shaped feather topping their heads,
so their eligibility for substantial difference must be
determined on a case by case basis. Because the California quail
resembles a European quail very closely except for the
comma-shaped crest, it is as different from an owl as a European
quail would be - or even more so, since an owl does not have a
crest of this sort. Thus, it seems appropriate to give
substantial difference between California/Gambel's quails and
owls. These two pieces of armory are thus clear of conflict under
RfS X.2. [Megge de Northwode, 11/2003,
A-Atlantia]

There is no CD for type for ravens vs generic
birds ... [Robert of Gresewode, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[a raven rising wings elevated and addorsed vs. a falcon
striking]. There is a CD for adding the laurel wreath, but no
difference for the posture of the bird. [Fiodnach Eoghan,
Shire of, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
These are correctly drawn ravens, even though they have smooth
feathers rather than hairy feathers. Please see the cover letter
for a discussion of the correct depiction and blazon of ravens.
[Lazarus von Kyrchberc, 01/2002,
A-Caid] [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included below
under "From Wreath: Ravens and Similar
Birds"]
The submitter's raven is drawn as a smooth-feathered, and
otherwise recognizable, raven. For a discussion of the depiction
of ravens in period armory, see the cover letter. [Derbáil
ingen Chonchobair, 01/2002,
A-Meridies][Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included below
under "From Wreath: Ravens and Similar
Birds"]
... there is no difference between ravens and falcons.
[Muirenn Faulkner, 01/2002,
R-Ansteorra] [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included
below under "From Wreath: Ravens and
Similar Birds"]
There is no difference between the falcon and the Cornish chough.
For more details on the reason why falcons have no difference
from either ravens or Cornish choughs, see the cover letter.
[Muirenn Faulkner, 01/2002,
R-Ansteorra] [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included
below under "From Wreath: Ravens and
Similar Birds"]
The birds were originally blazoned as "ravens displayed". Ravens
are not found in the displayed posture in period heraldry. They
are close by default and almost always found in that posture. The
unusual posture makes them more closely resemble eagles, which
are usually found in the displayed posture. Because of the
difficulty of identifying these birds as any particular sort of
bird, they have been reblazoned as generic birds. See the cover
letter of January 2000 for a more complete discussion of the
interaction between bird type and bird posture.

... There is no type difference between these generic birds and
the double-headed eagles. [Brangwayn Snowden, 01/2002,
R-Middle]
[a bird displayed wings inverted] The bird was originally
blazoned as a raven. However, it is not in a posture used
by ravens in period. It has a very eagle-like stylization of the
wings and it lacks any other distinguishing features of a raven.
It therefore cannot be identified as a raven and must be blazoned
as a bird. [Thorfinn of Deodar, 02/2002,
A-Calontir]
[birds displayed] The birds on the chief were originally
blazoned as "ravens". They are are not identifiable as ravens:
they are not in a period posture for ravens, they do not have any
of the heraldic identifying characteristics of a raven and they
do not clearly resemble naturalistic ravens. They have thus been
reblazoned as birds. [Dietrich von Ravensburg, 02/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[a corbie contourny sable] This does not conflict with a
badge of Kathren of Sandesward, Argent, a legless quail close
to sinister reguardant sable. There is ... another [CD] for
the difference between a corbie and a quail. Quails are round
birds, shaped much more like a hen than like a corbie. Hens and
corbies are distinct in period, so quails and corbies should be
distinct as well. [Ansger von Hohenkrewe, 03/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[a raven sable vs a vulture close sable] The pertinent
question is whether we should give a CD for type difference
between a vulture and a crow. Both birds are found in period
armory, although the vulture is found much less frequently than
the raven. One example is in Siebmacher, in the arms of Geyer von
Osterberg on fol. 34 (canting on German for vulture,
geier). The vulture in those arms is depicted so that it
is identical to an eagle rising wings displayed sable.

It does not seem surprising that European vultures would be
depicted similarly to other raptors. When one looks at European
vultures in bird guides, many of them have a closer resemblance
to hawks and eagles than do the commonly found North American
vultures (such as the turkey vulture): for example, some European
vultures have feathered heads. The term vulture may also
apply, in some cultures, to any bird of prey, not just a carrion
eater. A vulture close (said to be heraldic) is found on a coin
of Vladislav (Vlaieu) of Wallachia in 1364-1377 as noted in an
article at http://www.geocities.com/romaniancoins/coattar.html.
The article states that in Romanian, vultur refers to any
large bird of prey and the bird depicted on the coin is certainly
not distinct from an eagle.

The similar depictions of hawks and ravens in the close posture
has been noted at some length in the Cover Letter of January
2002. [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included above
under "From Wreath: Ravens and Similar
Birds"] The vulture seems to fall into the same category,
as the period representations of vultures in heraldry (or
heraldic coins) noted are apparently indistinguishable from
eagles and hawks. The Cover Letter of January 2000 stated, "In
the future I will be more likely to grant difference between
different types of birds when they are (a) different in period,
(b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is
some visual difference." Until such time as it can be
demonstrated that there is ¨some visual difference¨ between a
vulture and a raven when used in heraldry, no difference will be
given between these charges. [Brand Björnsson, 11/2002,
R-Meridies]
[a bird displayed] The bird was originally blazoned as a
raven, but it is neither in the raven's default posture
nor is it otherwise clearly identifiable as a raven. We have thus
blazoned it as a generic bird. [Bronwyn Mewer,
02/2003,
A-An Tir]
[A hawk striking maintaining in its talons a compass star
sable] Conflict with ... Argent, a raven rising regardant
wings disclosed proper, maintaining in the dexter claw a sword
gules. There is a CD for changing the field. There is no
difference between a hawk and a raven (see the discussion in the
January 2002 cover letter). There is no difference in posture
between these birds except for the head position, which is
insufficient for posture difference by RfS X.4.h. There is no
difference for changing the maintained charge.

This is also a visual conflict by RfS X.5 with ... (Fieldless)
A raven striking sustaining a spur rowel of eight points
sable. The only obvious visual difference between these two
pieces of armory is the angle of the bird's wings (which is never
worth difference) and the piercing of the spur rowel. Only on
close comparison is it clear that in Jared's case the spur rowel
is co-primary while in Ricart's case the compass star is a
maintained charge. The visual similarities of two designs are so
close as to give an unavoidable visual conflict. [Ricart
Berenguer Falcón, 03/2003,
R-Meridies]
The College generally felt that this bird, drawn in some sort of
early period artistic stylization, was not recognizable as a
raven. However, this charge is clearly identifiable as a bird
close, albeit a stylized one. We have therefore reblazoned it as
a bird. [Brenna of Storvik and Gauss Magnússon,
04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a raven displayed vs. a double-headed eagle displayed]
There is no type difference given between a raven displayed and a
double-headed eagle displayed: "[a raven displayed vs. an
eagle displayed] Even though ravens and eagles were different
birds in period, only eagles were ever displayed.
Therefore there is not a CD for type" (LoAR November 1999; see
also the extensive discussion in the Cover Letter for the January
2000 LoAR). There is also no difference for the number of heads:
"...(not too dissimilarly to not granting a CVD for the
difference between an eagle and a double-headed eagle)" (LoAR
October 1990 p.14). [Njall Randvesson, 04/2003,
R-East]
[loon vs. raven] No evidence has been presented or found
indicating that a loon is a charge found in period heraldry.
Thus, per RfS X.4.e, we must determine the type difference
between a raven and a loon on visual grounds. A loon is similar
to a duck, except that it has a thin pointed bill rather than a
duck-bill. The visual difference between the loon and the raven
merits significant difference ... [Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[(Fieldless) A rooster vert] This badge is clear of ...
(Fieldless) A raven vert. Per the Cover Letter to the
November 2003 LoAR, there is substantial difference between a
rooster (a "poultry-shaped" bird) and a raven (a "regular-shaped"
bird) when both birds are in period postures and drawn correctly.
The two badges are clear of conflict by RfS X.2. [Carlo
Gallucci, 03/2004,
A-Aethelmearc]

From Wreath: Ravens and Similar
Birds
Three submissions this month (Muirenn Faulkner in Ansteorra,
Lazarus von Kyrchberc in Caid, and Derbáil ingen Chonchobair in
Meridies) raised questions about the correct depictions of ravens
in armory, and how much difference ravens should be given from
other birds.

A raven is a crow is a rook is a daw is (almost) a Cornish
chough

It is important to remember that, for the medieval herald, no
difference is made in depicting ravens, crows, rooks, or
jackdaws. Cornish choughs are only distinguished in heraldic art
from these birds by the chough's gules beak and feet. This
information can be found in various heraldic treatises, including
Parker, Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, and Woodward,
A Treatise on Heraldry, British and Foreign. Even the word
corbie in English, from which derives the canting arms of
Corbet, refers both to the raven and to the carrion crow,
according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The ensuing
discussion will use the term "corbie" to refer to all these
birds, for convenience.

Must corbies be depicted with hairy feathers to be good period
style?

Just as one attribute of the boar is its bristles, one attribute
of the corbie is its hairy feathers. A nice depiction of a
"hairy" raven is in the Gr�nenberg Armorial, reproduced in fig.
474 of Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to Heraldry. It is
important to realize that corbies are drawn with hairy feathers
in period heraldic art just as often as boars are drawn with
clearly visible bristles, which is to say, infrequently. It is
therefore acceptable to draw a corbie with smooth feathers and
blazon it as a raven, crow, or whatever sort of corbie it is
meant to be, as long as it is identifiable as a corbie in the
emblazon. It is not necessary to reblazon a smooth-feathered and
identifiable corbie as a generic bird.

In the Cover Letter to the January 2000 LoAR, Laurel ruled in
pertinent part that "... in the future I will be stricter about
requiring that a bird be drawn with its defining attributes
(i.e., a dove should have a tuft). Without the defining
attributes, the bird may just be blazoned as 'a bird.'" Since the
majority of the period depictions of corbies are
smooth-feathered, it is clear that the corbie's hairy feathers
are merely an attribute of the corbie, not a defining
attribute. It is unclear whether a corbie has a true defining
attribute. Corbies in period heraldry are overwhelmingly both
tinctured sable and postured close, but other birds share these
attributes. The question of whether the corbie has a defining
attribute for purposes of the January 2000 ruling must be left
for further research.

In England, smooth-feathered corbies are found in depictions of
the canting arms of Corbet throughout our period. These arms all
feature some number of corbies in sable on an Or field. These
depictions range from the Herald's Roll c. 1280 (as seen in
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones, Heraldry, p. 8), through the
15th C Fenwick Roll (Gwynn-Jones, The Art of Heraldry, p.
26) through the early 17th C Segar Roll (The Oxford Guide to
Heraldry, plate 12). In addition to the canting corbies in
the arms of Corbet, the Fenwick roll gives us the canting rooks
in the arms of Rokesdon (Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones, p. 61) and
the canting crows in the arms of Crowmer (ibid., p. 109). They
are drawn virtually identically.

Outside of England, we also find many smooth-feathered corbies.
Siebmacher, in his 1605 Wappenbuch, draws his corbies
indistinctly from some of the other birds close, and without
hairy feathers. Some of the corbies in Siebmacher hold a coin or
ring in their mouths, as period heralds also recognized the
corbie's acquisitive nature and love for shiny objects. However,
most of Siebmacher's corbies are drawn in their default close
posture without other accoutrements. Two of the numerous examples
from Siebmacher are the canting arms of die Raeblinger (f. 129)
from the Rhineland, Or, a raven sable maintaining in its beak
a ring argent, and the canting arms of die Krhomair (f. 63)
from Silesia, Or a crow sable atop a trimount vert. The
author of Gelre (a late 14th/early 15th C armorial)
depicts the Spanish arms of Don Loys Cornel, Or, five crows
sable, but the only way to know these are meant to be crows
(keeping in mind the French for crow, corneille), is to
recognize the cant, or to read the blazon provided by the editors
of this volume. The birds are drawn indistinguishably from
martlets. In Italy, the arms of Alfonso Sadoleto da Modeno (who
held office in the Bargello from 1521-1524) are found in bas
relief in the courtyard of the Bargello, Bendy embattled ...
on a chief ... a raven (Stemmi (nel museo nazionale del
Bargello), p. 126). This bird is blazoned as a raven by the
author of Stemmi and is a rather naturalistic raven or
crow. It has the outlines of a smooth-feathered bird, although
the bas relief shows some shaggy feathering as internal
detail.

How much difference should be given between corbies and other
birds?

As noted in reference to Gelre and Siebmacher's
Wappenbuch, some period heraldic art draws corbies
interchangeably from other sorts of birds which are in the same
close posture. In these cases, only obvious cant, or well
researched blazon, can help the viewer know what sort of bird was
intended. Both the author of Gelre and Siebmacher draw
their corbies indistinguishably from martlets, although other
heraldic art may be found (such as the Fenwick roll) which is
careful to distinguish between the footless martlet (drawn either
with erased leg stumps, or couped leg stumps) and birds which
have feet. It is interesting to note one coat in Gelre,
the arms of Jan von Raligen (f. 75), Argent a cross and in
canton a martlet sable, for a crest on a cap of maintenance
argent turned up sable, a martlet sable between two wings
argent. The martlet on the shield is drawn with the expected
couped legs, but the martlet on the crest is shown with full legs
and standard bird feet. So in Gelre, not only does it
appear that other compact-outlined birds are drawn like martlets,
but on some occasions, martlets are drawn more like other birds.
The heraldic art in both Siebmacher and Gelre is generally
of good quality, so these depictions are not a result of sloppy
heraldic art.

The specific question raised this month was that of the
difference between corbies and falcons, when they are both in the
close posture. It is easier to find artwork depicting corbies
close in period heraldry than it is to find artwork depicting
falcons close, as a larger proportion of the falcons in period
armory are depicted in a rising posture, either with wings
addorsed or displayed (see, for example, Elizabeth I's badge,
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones, p. 118, or the arms of die Falcken
on f. 189 in Siebmacher, Or a falcon rising wings displayed
proper ... as a crest a falcon rising wings displayed between two
bundles of sticks proper).

When it comes to the question of the difference of a close falcon
and a close corbie, it appears that a falcon close could be drawn
in period so that it was not distinguishable from a corbie close.
See for example v. Falckenstein, f. 193 of Siebmacher, Azure
three falcons argent ... as a crest, a falcon rising wings
displayed argent. In the Cover Letter of the January 2000
LoAR, Laurel ruled in pertinent part, "In the future I expect
that I will be more likely to grant difference between different
types of birds when (a) they are (a) different in period, (b) in
a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is
some visual difference (i.e., there is really no visual
difference between a popinjay and a hawk).". It appears that, at
least in the case of falcons close versus corbies close, there
are cases where there is no visual difference, even though they
are in a period posture and in well-drawn works of heraldic art.
Therefore, falcons close are not entitled to difference from
corbies close. Similarly, martlets close and corbies close should
not be given difference. [01/2002,
CL]

[brown sparrows proper] It is only
acceptable to blazon an animal as a brown animal proper
when that animal is frequently found in a brown color in nature,
as per the Cover Letter of October 1995, which states in
pertinent part in part "... animals which are normally brown may
be registered simply as an {X} proper (e.g., boar
proper, hare proper). Animals which are frequently
found as brown but also commonly appear in other tinctures in the
natural world may be registered as a brown {X} proper
(e.g., brown hound proper, brown horse proper)"

Period Western European sparrows are not brown birds, but
distinctly marked birds. The male is about one-third brown with
the remainder marked in black and white. The less distinctive
female is half brown and half off-white. One typical species is
Passer domesticus, which is called the house
sparrow in both Europe and the United States. It is thus
appropriate to inquire as to how a bird with such natural
markings would be depicted in period heraldry when proper.
Documentation was neither provided nor found for sparrows proper
in period armory, so we have to draw conclusions based on other
similarly marked proper birds.

There is evidence that birds that are black and white in nature
are depicted as black and white birds when proper, even if their
markings in the heraldic depictions are not quite correct for the
species. The black and white stork with red legs and beak in the
arms of Die Dobrzinsky on f. 73 of Siebmacher (from Silesia) is
depicted very much like a European stork. There are two types of
European stork, the White Stork and the Black Stork. Both are
black and white birds with red beak and legs. Siebmacher's
depiction is closer to a White Stork. Rietstap's blazon for this
family indicates that the bird there depicted is intended to be a
stork proper (beaked and membered gules, although this would, as
stated, also be proper for a stork). Siebmacher also gives us the
arms of von Atzelndorf (from Meissen) on f. 156 using a black and
white bird. Atzel is the German word for magpie, and a
magpie is a black and white bird, so it seems logical to conclude
that the bird in these arms is meant to be a magpie. The
Siebmacher rendition does not do a good job of duplicating a
magpie's natural markings, but its proportions and general black
and white coloration are correct for a magpie. A more accurately
marked magpie proper may be found in the 15th C Milanese
Stemmaria Trivulziano, p. 67, in the arms of de Bertis.
The magpie there is black and white and the markings mostly
follow the natural markings of a magpie. The editors inform us
that the word berta means magpie (although it is not the
most common Italian word for that bird) and de Bertis thus has
canting arms.

Because birds that are black and white in nature appear to be
drawn black and white when proper in period heraldry, it is not
reasonable to assume that the partially brown and partially black
and white sparrow would be solid brown in period heraldry. The
female sparrow is a closer match, but is still not an "all brown
bird". Also, as a general rule, it is the more colorful member of
a species that is used to determine the proper coloration of a
species in heraldry, the peacock being the prime example of this
practice. Thus, unless evidence is provided for brown sparrows
proper in period armory, they may not be registered in the
SCA.

Note that some New World birds that are called "sparrows" in
modern terminology are mostly brown in their coloration, unlike
the Old World species. It does not seem appropriate to consider
species outside of Western Europe when considering the proper
tincture of an animal, unless the animal being considered is a
distinctly non-European animal, such as the turkey (which is
found in its proper coloration as the crest of Robert Cooke in
1556). [Líadan Arundel, 09/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[sparrows proper] This submission violates some of the
provisions of RfS VIII.4.c. That rule states: "Proper is
allowed for natural flora and fauna when there is a widely
understood default coloration for the charge so specified. It is
not allowed if many people would have to look up the correct
coloration, or if the Linnaean genus and species (or some other
elaborate description) would be required to get it right. An
elephant, a brown bear, or a tree could each be proper; a female
American kestrel, a garden rose, or an Arctic fox in winter
phase, could not."

The College felt strongly that there was no "widely understood
default coloration" for sparrows. The members of the College
"would have to look up the correct coloration" in order to draw
the sparrow correctly. European sparrows all have complicated
markings that cannot be blazoned without "Linnaean genus and
species (or some other elaborate description)." Most male
European sparrows (the House, Tree, Italian, and Spanish
Sparrows) have white chests, black bibs, brown wings, back and
top of head, and brown or grey tails (with slight difference
between them in the particulars of the markings). The only male
European sparrow that don't match this general description is the
Rock Sparrow, which is white with grey streaks below and buff and
brown streaks above. The female sparrows are less elaborate in
their coloration but are still complicated to describe.

The sparrows as drawn in this submission are also not a correct
proper color for period European sparrows. The birds drawn in
this emblazon have dark grey breasts and rumps, which does not
match any of the European sparrow species described above.
[Líadan Arundel, 11/2003,
R-Ansteorra]

BIRD --
Swan

[a swan rousant vs. a stork passant, wings
elevated and addorsed] There is one CD ... and another for
the change of type of bird between a swan and a stork. While both
birds do have long necks, they appear to have been considered
distinct types of bird in period. Moreover, the stork is visually
distinct from the swan, both in general and in ... emblazon. The
stork has much longer legs and a spearlike beak. [William
Lindsay, 11/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[A swan contourny] Conflict with ... Per bend Or and
sable, a goose counter-statant, wings elevated, head lowered,
argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is no
difference between the postures of the birds, which only differ
in how high the head is held. There is no difference between a
goose and a swan. [Katerina von Halberstadt, 11/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
While swans are rousant by default, their barnyard cousins,
geese, are close by default. Note, for example, the canting arms
of Die Gansen on fol. 150 of Siebmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch,
and von Ganse on fol. 182 of the same volume. Each of these
canting coats uses a goose close as the sole charge on the
armory. [Effie Little, 03/2003,
A-An Tir]

[a penguin statant affronty, head to dexter
vs. a vulture close affronty] Penguins are arguably in their
most identifiable posture when in this posture (statant affronty,
head to dexter.) The most identifying portions of the vulture
(the head and neck ruff) and penguin (flipper wings) are easily
visible. Since penguins are not birds found in period heraldry,
the difference between the penguin and vulture must be determined
on visual grounds. A second CD is available for changing the type
of bird. [Tylar of Lochmere, 04/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Ermine, a hawk striking wings displayed sable tailed and in
chief three triquetras gules] Conflict with Malutka sep
Srebnitska, Ermine, a turkey vulture [Cathartes aura]
displayed, dexter wing erect, sinister wing inverted, proper.
There is one CD for adding the triquetras.

There is no type difference between a turkey vulture and a hawk.
The turkey vulture is a New World bird, which is not a period
heraldic charge. Per RfS X.4.e, when determining difference from
a non-period charge, difference is determined by a visual
comparison. A visual comparison shows that there is insufficient
difference between a turkey vulture and a hawk to give difference
on solely visual grounds.

There is no difference between the visually similar postures of
displayed dexter wing erect and striking wings displayed. There
is no difference for changing tincture, as less than half the
charge has changed in tincture. Malutka's turkey vulture is black
with a red head, and Morgan's hawk is black with a red tail. The
head and the tail combined make up less than half the tincture of
these birds. [Morgan mac Máeláin, 09/2002,
R-Caid]
[a raven sable vs a vulture close sable] The pertinent
question is whether we should give a CD for type difference
between a vulture and a crow. Both birds are found in period
armory, although the vulture is found much less frequently than
the raven. One example is in Siebmacher, in the arms of Geyer von
Osterberg on fol. 34 (canting on German for vulture,
geier). The vulture in those arms is depicted so that it
is identical to an eagle rising wings displayed sable.

It does not seem surprising that European vultures would be
depicted similarly to other raptors. When one looks at European
vultures in bird guides, many of them have a closer resemblance
to hawks and eagles than do the commonly found North American
vultures (such as the turkey vulture): for example, some European
vultures have feathered heads. The term vulture may also
apply, in some cultures, to any bird of prey, not just a carrion
eater. A vulture close (said to be heraldic) is found on a coin
of Vladislav (Vlaieu) of Wallachia in 1364-1377 as noted in an
article at http://www.geocities.com/romaniancoins/coattar.html.
The article states that in Romanian, vultur refers to any
large bird of prey and the bird depicted on the coin is certainly
not distinct from an eagle.

The similar depictions of hawks and ravens in the close posture
has been noted at some length in the Cover Letter of January
2002. [Ed.: The Cover Letter discussion is included above
under "From Wreath: Ravens and Similar
Birds"] The vulture seems to fall into the same category,
as the period representations of vultures in heraldry (or
heraldic coins) noted are apparently indistinguishable from
eagles and hawks. The Cover Letter of January 2000 stated, "In
the future I will be more likely to grant difference between
different types of birds when they are (a) different in period,
(b) in a period posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is
some visual difference." Until such time as it can be
demonstrated that there is ¨some visual difference¨ between a
vulture and a raven when used in heraldry, no difference will be
given between these charges. [Brand Björnsson, 11/2002,
R-Meridies]

BIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE

From Wreath: Birds and Substantial
Difference

This month we were called upon to make a number of rulings
concerning difference between very different types of birds.
After much thought, and discussion with Evan Wreath-designate, we
have formulated the following policy.

Policies concerning birds and substantial difference need to be
built upon previous policies concerning birds and significant
difference. An important ruling on the topic is found in the
Cover Letter for the January 2000 LoAR. That ruling was entitled
On Owls and Eagles, but it also spoke more generally
concerning difference for birds. The pertinent summary portions
of that ruling read as follows:

The conflict rules make a rigid distinction between the type of
a charge and its posture. This works well most of the time, but
less so for birds, where the type and the posture are often
closely connected. In particular, with vanishingly rare
exceptions the eagle is the only bird found displayed in period
heraldry. Therefore any other bird displayed will arguably be
visually similar to an eagle...

The new solution to the problem is to sacrifice some of the
theoretical purity of separation of type and posture. Because
only eagles among birds are attested as displayed in period,
any other bird in a displayed posture will be compared to any
bird in a displayed posture usuing [sic] the visual test
of rule X.4.e for non-period charges. Thus there will not be a
CD between an owl displayed and an eagle displayed, because
they are too visually similar, but there will be a CD between
an owl displayed and a penguin displayed, because there is
still significant visual difference. Additionally any bird
other than an eagle in a displayed posture will be considered a
"weirdness" [step from standard period practice].

In the future I expect that I will be more likely to grant
difference between different types of birds when (a)
[sic] they are (a) different in period, (b) in a period
posture, (c) drawn correctly, and (d) there is some
visual difference (i.e., there is really no visual difference
between a popinjay and a hawk).

In some cases, it is appropriate for very different
types of bird to be given substantial difference from each other.
This parallels the SCA's precedents for other kinds of
similarly-formed, but nonetheless very different, animate
charges: bulls and lions were ruled substantially different in
the LoAR of July 2001, dragons and griffins were ruled
substantially different in the same LoAR, zebras and stags were
ruled substantially different in the LoAR of May 2001, unicorns
and wolves were ruled substantially different in the LoAR of
March 1994, and ferrets and hedgehogs were ruled substantially
different in the LoAR of September 1991.

In order for two birds to be considered substantially different
from each other, it is necessary for the following conditions to
apply, analogous to the criteria listed in the January 2000 Cover
Letter for significant difference between birds:

1. The change from one type of bird to the other type of bird
must "not usually [have been] used to indicate any form of
cadency" in period (RfS X.2). The two types of bird must of
course also have been considered different in period, or they
would not even be significantly different (RfS X.4.e).

2. Each bird, in both the new and the old submissions, must be
in a posture which was period for that type of bird.

3. Each bird, in both the new and the old submissions, must be
drawn correctly.

4. The two types of bird must have been drawn in fashions that
were consistently very different from each other throughout
period heraldry.

Concerning criterion 2, remember that a bird may be
in a period posture without being in a default posture. Ravens
are sometimes found in the rising posture in period,
although their default posture is close. Swans are found
in the close posture in period, although their default
posture is rousant (synonymous with rising).

It is vanishingly rare to find birds other than eagles in the
displayed posture, while vast multitudes of eagles are
found in the displayed posture. We thus re-affirm the January
2000 Cover Letter precedent (above). All birds (other than
eagles) in the displayed posture are considered a "weirdness" and
are not eligible for substantial difference - unless
documentation is provided showing that the particular type of
(non-eagle) bird is frequently found in the displayed
posture in period.

Here are a few generalizations concerning bird posture to be used
in conjunction with criterion 2 above. In addition, see the
attachment to this LoAR titled "Some birds and the postures in
which they are found in period English heraldry." [Ed:
Included as Appendix A]

Barring evidence to the contrary for a particular type of
bird, it may be assumed that any type of bird is in a period
posture when it is close.

If a bird is found in a rising posture in period, it
is reasonable to assume that both rising wings addorsed
and rising wings displayed are standard variants of that
posture.

Period birds that are reguardant are considered a
standard posture variant of period birds that are not
reguardant. So, if a bird is found in the rising posture
in period, it is reasonable to assume that rising
reguardant is also a period posture. One cannot make
the same assumption about guardant.

Turning any type of bird to sinister is considered a
standard posture variant for all period heraldic postures, due
to long-standing SCA practice. So, if a bird is found in the
naiant posture in period, then for purposes of SCA
heraldic rulings we will also consider the naiant to
sinister posture to be period.

On examining the types of birds found in period armory, and
how they were used, certain categories of bird type become
apparent. These categories are:

Crane-shaped birds, including cranes, herons, and
storks: tall thin birds with long necks, long pointed beaks,
medium-weight bodies, very long legs.

Poultry-shaped birds, including chickens, quail,
partridge, and peacocks: compact rounded birds with short to
medium necks, short beaks, heavy rounded bodies, medium or
short legs, often with distinctive tails or head details
(combs, crests).

"Regular-shaped" birds, including martlets, ravens
and other corbies, raptors (hawks, eagles, and owls), and
doves: birds with the classic "bird shape". Compact light- or
medium-weight birds with small necks and beaks, short to medium
legs, plain tails.

Not all period birds are found in the categories above. For
example, while many popinjays (parrots) are drawn as
"regular-shaped" birds in period (often indistinct from a green
crow with red legs and bill), some of the more naturalistic
drawings of popinjays have such pronounced tails that popinjays,
for the moment, been left out of any of these categories.

Substantial difference relates to these categories of birds as
follows:

Birds within a category are not substantially different
from each other. They may be (but are not always) significantly
different from each other based on the criteria in RfS X.4.e.
Within the "regular-shaped birds" category, there is
significant difference between an owl (close guardant) and a
dove (close), but not substantial difference. However, in the
same category, there is no difference between a falcon rising
and an eagle rising.

Birds in different categories are given substantial
difference from each other as long as they meet the general
requirements for substantial difference listed above. Thus, a
correctly drawn dunghill cock (close), in the "poultry-shaped"
bird category, is substantially different from a "crane-shaped"
heron (close), a "swan-shaped" swan close, or a
"regular-shaped" martlet (close). However, a "poultry-shaped"
dunghill cock volant is not substantially different from a
"regular-shaped" dove volant, because, while the dove is found
in the volant posture in period heraldry, the dunghill
cock is not.

Birds that are not mentioned as part of the categories
above must have their eligibility for substantial difference
determined on a case by case basis. In particular,
SCA-compatible birds that are not found in period heraldry,
such as some New World birds, may be considered in a category
with very similar Old World birds, on a case by case
basis.

Since the July 1992 LoAR, the term
maintaining has been used for grasped or held items which
are too small to be worth difference. Sustaining and
supporting have been used for a grasped or held item which
is of comparable visual weight to the item holding it, and thus
worth difference. In cases where other blazon words are used for
the act of holding an item, the blazon is ambiguous about whether
the held item is significant or not. It is true that the term
maintaining literally derives from a Latin phrase for
holding in a hand, and thus is not ideal for blazoning an item
which is held in the mouth, or by the tail, of an animal.
However, it seems preferable to remove the blazon ambiguity and
use the word maintaining in these cases. [Godwin
Alfricson, 08/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[Tierced per chevron wavy throughout ...] ... the
stylistic problems are allowed under the Grandfather Clause. The
general form of her blazon, using the term tierced, has
been held over from her previous device as well. [Allison
Poinvillars de Tours, 09/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
[coward] The Letter of Intent blazoned this cat as
coward. The exact disposition of the tail of an animal is
a matter for artistic license in period, which would argue
against using the term coward in blazon. However, the term
is permissible if the submitter so requests, as long as the tail
position is drawn correctly and identifiably. Coward may
be blazoned when the tail is clearly tucked between the hind
legs. This is not the case in this emblazon. Also, the
submitter's original blazon did not use the term coward.
Therefore, the term was deleted. [Muirgel ingen Gilla
Comgaill, 09/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
The Pictorial Dictionary indicates that a pair of deer's horns
conjoined in this fashion may be blazoned as a deer's
attires or as a massacre. The former term is closer to
the submitted blazon. [Colin de Vire, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[Reblazon of device] The Administrative Handbook mandates
that an error in blazon which requires correction via a Letter of
Intent must also include an emblazon in the Letter of Intent. The
Letter of Intent did not provide such an emblazon in the Letter
of Intent, although a copy of the old form with the emblazon was
provided in the package to Wreath. This is therefore being
returned for lack of necessary paperwork. [Gilbert Rhys
MacLachlan, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
Reblazon. Azure, a black-footed ferret passant guardant Or
marked sable and argent, grasping in its dexter forepaw a rose
argent, barbed, seeded, slipped, and leaved proper. Her
original blazon was Azure, a black-footed ferret passant
guardant proper, grasping in its dexter forepaw a rose argent,
barbed, seeded, slipped, and leaved proper [Mustela
nigripes]. Members of the College were confused about what
tincture a black-footed ferret proper might be, citing various
references to support interpretations of either argent or Or.
Inspection of her form shows that the ferret is predominantly Or
with a black mask, forefeet, and tail, and white showing at the
very bottom of the belly. The blazon has been changed to reflect
the predominant Or tincture. The term black-footed has
been retained in the blazon. We would not currently specify a
species to this level of detail in blazon, but this term is
grandfathered to the submitter. The Linnaean species reference
has been omitted, as it was only necessary due to the use of
Linnaean proper. The term black-footed should specify the
type of ferret sufficiently. [Megan Glenleven, 10/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[a dragon rampant] Winged quadrupedal monsters have their
wings elevated and addorsed by default when rampant. For dragons
and griffins, both segreant and rampant will result
in the same emblazon. There is no reason to prefer one term over
the other in blazon, and thus I will preserve the submitted term
in blazon.

Recall that for many years, SCA blazon did not use
segreant at all, and it is a latecomer to real-world
blazon as well. Parker indicates that segreant is "applied
by most writers to the griffin instead of rampant",
but I believe Parker overstates the case for our period, even
though he may adequately represent 19th and 20th C English
preferences. Parker also does not extend his preference for
segreant outside of griffins. His discussion of dragons,
on p. 296 (inexplicably under the Griffin heading),
depicts the dragon rampant of Dauney exactly as we would
draw a dragon segreant. The SCA allows the term
segreant to be used for all winged quadrupeds.

Brault's Early Blazon (second edition) is a book which
thoroughly discusses 12th and 13th C blazon. The phrase grifon
rampant on p.218 is translated as "griffin rampant". The
illustration, in figure 222, is exactly what one would expect
from segreant. Brault gives one period blazon example,
taken from the Siege of Caerlaverock c. 1300, De inde au
grifoun rampant de or fin. This blazon, using other entries
in Early Blazon, translates to Azure a griffin rampant
Or. The term segreant is not found in Early
Blazon at all. It is interesting to note that Dennys, in
An Heraldic Imagination, refers to a coat of arms in the
Siege of Caerlaverock as Azure a Griffin segreant gold. I
believe that this is likely to be the same example as Brault
gives, and Dennys has used the later preference for
segreant when translating the blazon (as well as choosing
to translate or fin as literally gold, although
Brault does not indicate that this was a real 13th C blazon
implication for the term or fin.) However, since Brault
does not indicate the owner of the arms in question, this remains
a conjecture. [Feme inghean Donnabháin, 10/2001,
A-Trimaris]
The term springing is, in the SCA, a synonym for
salient used when blazoning deer and their close
relatives, and should not be used for other animals.
[Stierbach, Barony of, 11/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[a boar statant sable crined gules] The crining of
the boar refers to the ridge of bristles along its back.
[Rycharde de Northewode, 12/2001,
A-An Tir]
[in chief three lozenges] The original blazon read, in
latter part, ... and in chief three lozenges in fess Or.
Three items in chief will also be in fess by default. We do find
armory in the SCA with three items in chief, arranged one and
two, but this arrangement should always be blazoned. [John de
Lochabre, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[A holly branch bendwise sinister inverted vert fructed gules
enfiling a mullet voided Or] The design of a charge enfiling
a voided mullet is a weirdness, but it is not in itself
sufficient reason for return. It is a weirdness because of the
cumulative effects of the unusual voided charge (the voided
mullet), the unusual action of enfiling, and the fact that the
overlap implicit in the act of enfiling reduces the
identifiability of both charges involved. Charges which in their
standard period depiction include a large central hole (such as
laurel wreaths, annulets, and mascles) are not considered a
weirdness when enfiled. Charges with small central holes (such as
spur rowels and rustres), and voided charges where the usual form
of the charge is not voided (mullets) will be considered a
weirdness when enfiled.

The question of which charge in the heraldic ring-toss is
"enfiled" is one of the great heraldic cocktail party discussion
topics. The SCA has a precedent on the topic which is being
followed in this blazon:

[An arrow argent enfiling a serpent involved] The definition of
the term enfile has changed over the years. Boutell (English
Heraldry, 1902) equates it with "pierce": a sword passing
through a crown would enfile the crown. Brooke-Little (An
Heraldic Alphabet 1975) equates it with "encircle": a sword
passing through a crown would be enfiled by the crown. The
confusion is sufficient reason to avoid the use of the term,
but sometimes (as with this submission) it's hard to avoid.
Friar (Dictionary of Heraldry, 1987, p.137) agrees with
Boutell's definition; and that definition does follow more
naturally from the etymology of the word (from French fil,
"thread": beads are threaded on a string, crowns are enfiled on
[by] a sword). That is the definition used here.

[Evelyn atte Holye, 12/2001,
A-Ealdormere]
This submission was originally blazoned using a lozenge
fesswise. Because lozenges could be drawn with various
proportions in period, including a square set on its corner
(which can be neither fesswise nor palewise), it does not make
sense to distinguish different proportions of lozenge in blazon.
[Cecily of Whitehaven, 02/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[wolf's heads erased ululant] This seems a good time to
remind the College that the blazon term ululant,
indicating that the animal has its head up and is howling, is not
a period blazon term: "While we allow wolves and foxes to be
ululant, the head posture is an SCA invention. It is
possible that had the head posture been introduced today we would
not allow it. Allowing ululant wolves is a step beyond period
practice; allowing anything but canines to use the position is
two steps beyond period practice and therefore grounds for
return" (LoAR December 2000). [Wülfer Drachenhand,
02/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Or, a mascle within a mascle throughout sable] This was
originally blazoned as Sable vêtu Or, a lozenge within a
mascle Or. The visual realities of the emblazon are such that
it is immediately perceived as a mascle within another, and we
have so reblazoned it. There were concerns about "op art"
stylization, but this is clearly visible and reproducible as a
mascle within another, so it does not have visual ambiguity.
While it is possible to blazon this in the fashion originally
presented in the Letter of Intent, blazon ambiguity is not the
same problem as visual ambiguity. [Marquet de Hyet,
02/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
Labels are throughout by default, so this need not be blazoned.
[Thomas de Lacy, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
The device was blazoned on the LoI using a lozenge ployé
throughout rather than the originally submitted vêtu
ployé. We have been asked whether one can reblazon using a
lozenge ployé throughout to avoid stylistic problems with
placing charges (in this submission, the estencely) on the
"vested" portions of a field (in this submission, the portions of
the field outside the "lozenge"). There is explicit precedent
stating that placing charges around a lozenge ployé
throughout (also known as a lozenge concave
throughout) is not allowable style:

Vêtu fields should not have charges in the "vested" portions of
the field --- and although this was blazoned on the LOI as a
lozenge concave throughout, the latter two adjectives
almost mandate this be considered a vêtu field. (LoAR December
1992, pg. 15)

Some commenters noted that we allow fields per
chevron throughout to be charged with three charges two and
one. Such fields could conceivably be blazoned as chapé with
charges on the "vested" portions of the field. Yet we do not
return these arms for using charged chapé. This is because a "per
chevron" design with three charges on it is relatively common in
period, and "per chevron throughout" is a period artistic variant
of "per chevron". Chapé with any charges on it is
extremely rare. The most likely interpretation of such a design
is per chevron, and thus that design is acceptable. The
design in this submission is one for which the most likely
interpretation is of a vêtu field, rather than some design
using a variant lozenge, and absent documentation to the
contrary, will be considered to be a vêtu ployé field.

We have had a few previous registrations of charged lozenges
ployé throughout between charges, but they were registered
without explanatory stylistic comment. One cannot draw any firm
conclusions about heraldic policy from registrations without
comment. [Brigitte MacFarlane Red, 02/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
The raven was originally blazoned with its dexter talon
raised. This detail has been ruled unblazonable in the past:
"A bird passant, that is to say, with one leg raised, is
considered an unblazoned variant of close" (LoAR February
1996, p. 1). Quite a few period birds close are drawn with one
leg raised to some degree, especially massive birds such as
cocks, hens and swans. Perhaps this is because the bird better
fills the space at the bottom of the shield when drawn with one
leg raised. [Branwen of Werchesvorde, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[a wolf passant regardant ravissant a man] The device
cannot be blazoned in a way which consistently reproduces the
emblazon. The man is almost large enough to be co-primary with
the wolf, so his exact posture and placement on the field must be
blazoned rather than left to artistic license. The man overlaps
the wolf in front, is somewhere between palewise and bendwise
sinister, and his posture is statant affronty with raised arms.
No one in the College or at the Wreath meeting was able to
provide a clear blazon for this man or his arrangement with the
wolf. [Sigmundr Hákonsson� 02/2002,
R-Drachenwald]
The LoI suggested that the blazon term ravissant be used.
This term is sometimes used for a wolf which is grasping its prey
by the neck and holding it over its back. However, it might also
be considered appropriate for other sorts of predator/prey
arrangements. Therefore, the term ravissant should not be
used without more explicit arrangement and posture description.
[Sigmundr Hákonsson, 02/2002,
R-Drachenwald]
[Argent, ... and a chief barry argent and gules] This was
blazoned on the Letter of Intent with three barrulets
enhanced rather than a chief barry. The College felt
that the proportions of the emblazon would be better preserved
with this blazon. [Ii Saburou Katsumari, 03/2002,
A-Atlantia]
Remember, enfiling is equivalent to threading (as
in threading a needle). [Randal Avery of the Mease,
04/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[Argent, a columbine and a bordure wavy purpure charged with
increscents argent] It is an odd but nonetheless valid nuance
of SCA blazon that the blazon above is equivalent to the blazon
Argent, a columbine flower purpure and a bordure wavy purpure
semy of increscents argent. Either blazon form is acceptable.
In this emblazon, the columbine is purpure, and the bordure is
purpure with argent increscents on it. However, the blazon
Argent, a columbine and a bordure wavy purpure semy of
increscents argent puts increscents on the columbine as well
as on the bordure. [Olivia MacKay, 04/2002,
A-Calontir]
[Gules, in dexter chief, sinister chief, and base a bear
rampant Or, and in chief, dexter base and sinister base a tree
argent] No documentation was presented, and none was found,
for this arrangement of two types of charge on a plain field. The
arrangement is very difficult to blazon, hence the laborious
blazon above. Some less explicit blazons were suggested, but none
of them would unambiguously recreate this emblazon. The
combination of the lack of documentation and difficulty of blazon
indicates that this design is too far from period style to be
accepted.

While we were unable to find this arrangement of two types of
charge on a plain field, it may be found on a field divided
party of six pieces. See, for example, a grant of arms
c.1558, Party of six azure and Or, three fountains and three
lion's heads erased gules (Gwynn-Jones, The Art of
Heraldry, p. 103). This blazon for the 1558 coat is patterned
on the blazon for Theodoric of Salt Keep, Party of six pieces
per fess nebuly gules and ermine, three anvils argent and three
falcons close sable. In these cases, the divided field causes
the charges to fall into the desired arrangement by default,
simplifying the blazon. [Sofia Chiudskaia Smolianina,
05/2002,
R-Middle]
[Per fess purpure and sable, a skull and in base an hourglass
fesswise argent] There were some questions about the charge
placement in this armory and the correct blazon for the armory.
The visual interpretation of this emblazon shows that the skull
is indeed a primary charge, the only primary in this design. This
can be seen by the fact that it is mostly centered on the field
and overlies the line of division. The hourglass is clearly
secondary because it is in base beneath a charge which is
clearly primary.

The primary nature of the skull and secondary nature of the
hourglass are apparent from the blazon as well as from the
emblazon. The fact that the hourglass is marked by the blazon as
in base after a charge which is not explicitly positioned
on the field makes it clearly a secondary charge, and the
previously named charge a primary charge.

If the blazon were simply Per fess purpure and sable, a skull
and an hourglass fesswise argent, then the two charges would
be co-primary, with the skull entirely on the top half of the
field and the hourglass entirely on the bottom half of the field.
If the two charges were both explicitly positioned in chief...
and in base..., they would also be co-primary charges and
again be placed with the first named charge entirely on the top
half of the field and the second named charge entirely on the
bottom half of the field. [Soshka Gregor'evich Vilanov,
07/2002,
A-Trimaris]
The bird in chief was originally blazoned as a dove.
However, the bird lacks the head tuft which is used to identify a
heraldic dove, and is not in the dove's standard close posture.
It has thus been reblazoned as a generic bird, per the
Cover Letter for the January 2000 LoAR: "In the future I will be
stricter about requiring that a bird be drawn with its defining
attributes (i.e., a dove should have a tuft). Without the
defining attributes, the bird may just be blazoned as 'a bird.'"
[Kyne Wynn the Kind, 08/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[in base three millrinds two and one] The millrinds'
arrangement was not originally explicitly blazoned on the LoI,
but it was blazoned on the form. On a shield shape three charges
in base will be two and one by default, but this is not
necessarily the case on other shapes, such as a rectangular
banner. Since the submitter explicitly blazoned the charges in
base as two and one, we have reinstated this term. If the
submitter would prefer to have this left as a matter of artist's
licence, she may request a reblazon. [Áine Sindradóttir,
10/2002,
A-Atlantia]
This submission adds an augmentation to her registered device.
The previous device blazoned the field as Per pale argent and
gules, goutty. We have reblazoned the field of her registered
device to Per pale argent and gules, all goutty to ensure
that both sides of the field are goutty. [Ysabella Celestina
Manrique de Palma, 10/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[a brown horse couchant proper blazed and stockinged
argent] The details of the tincture of the stockings and
blaze of the horse would not generally be blazoned but were
present in the submitter's previous blazon. Blazons can be
changed by Laurel at any time, so the Grandfather Clause does not
apply to blazons as it does to registration of armorial elements.
However, it seems appropriate to maintain the same blazon if that
blazon is not misleading. [Betha of Bedford, 11/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Quarterly argent and vert, two crosses potent in bend
sable] Some commenters suggested that it was unnecessary to
explicitly blazon the sable crosses in bend on this quarterly
argent and vert field. Because the black crosses could be
disposed in many different arrangements on the field, including
in pale and in fess, it is necessary to blazon
their arrangement explicitly. Had the field been quarterly
argent and sable, then the crosses would indeed be placed
in bend by default, since the black crosses could not
overlap the black portions of the field. [Arkell vom
Cophus, 11/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[in pale a thistle proper issuant from a tower] We have
used the blazon phrase in pale to indicate that the
thistle and tower are co-primary charges. The blazon A thistle
proper issuant from a tower sable implies that the thistle
would be a maintained charge. [Derek of Ildhafn, 01/2003,
A-Caid]
The lion was blazoned as a Saracenic lion, but we do not
blazon the national origin of charges unless such an adjective is
needed to distinguish between different types of charge. This
appears to be a reasonable artistic variant of a lion guardant
and we have so blazoned it. [Scheherazade al-Zahira,
01/2003,
R-East]
[Per bend argent and sable, a hound rampant and a hound
rampant contourny counterchanged] This does not conflict with
Matthew de Wolfe, Per bend sinister embattled argent and
sable, in bend two wolves rampant combattant counterchanged.
To understand why there is no conflict, it is helpful to remove
all blazon shortcuts and blazon each of these pieces of armory
explicitly. Note that there are two important common blazon
shortcuts which are found in both Matheus' and Matthew's current
blazons. The first blazon shortcut is that two charges on a
divided field are placed on opposite sides of a line of division
by default. The other blazon shortcut is the use of the word
counterchanged rather than using the tinctures
argent and sable.

Thus, when we remove blazon shortcuts, Matheus' arms may be
blazoned Per bend argent and sable, in sinister chief a hound
rampant sable and in dexter base a hound rampant to sinister
argent. Matthew's arms may be blazoned Per bend sinister
embattled argent and sable, in dexter chief a wolf rampant to
sinister sable and in sinister base a wolf rampant
argent.

Precedent has consistently held that "you cannot 'blazon your way
out of' a conflict" (stated succinctly in this quote from the
LoAR of February 2000, which upheld years of previous precedent).
Thus, we must compare these two pieces of armory using the
"explicit" blazons. There is one CD for changing the field. There
is no difference for changing the type of canine from wolf to
hound.

The charges may not lie on a portion of the field with which they
have no contrast. Matheus' charges could not be arranged like
Matthew's (with the sable charge in dexter chief and the
argent charge in sinister base) on a per bend argent
and sable field, because each charge would have no contrast
with half of the field on which it lies. The charges must change
their arrangement. Because this change in arrangement is "caused
by other changes to the design" (namely, the changes to the
field) it is not worth difference per RfS X.4.g for arrangement
changes. (This is often known as a "forced" arrangement change or
"forced" position change.)

The second CD comes from the change of posture. Each canine is
facing in the opposite direction from the corresponding canine in
the other coat. This posture change is a CD by RfS X.4.h.

By this analysis we are expressly overturning the precedent set
in January 1994 that stated in pertinent part:

[Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two
<charges> counterchanged vs. Huffam, Per bend sable and
argent, two <charges> counterchanged ] Because the
charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed
anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a
consequence, the change in position of the <charges>
cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division
(though in Huffam they are in the expected position, one on
either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for
position on the field

By this precedent, the use of the word
counterchanged would remove a conflict which would apply
if the tinctures of the charges were explicitly sable and
argent, which is contrary to long-standing SCA policy.
[Matheus of Coppertree, 02/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a chevron enarched within and conjoined at the point to a
chevron] The central conjunction of chevrons was blazoned on
the Letter of Intent as a chevron inarched. A standard SCA
chevron enarched has each arm embowed outwards (curved in
the opposite direction from the arms of a chevron ployé). The SCA
chevron enarched is an artistic variant of a standard
chevron deriving from attempts to show the curvature of a shield.
The combination of chevrons in this submission is found in Legh's
1591 Accedens of Armory, where the combination is blazoned
as a chevron enarched. Parker, in his Glossary of Terms
used in Heraldry, blazons this combination as a chevron
inarched. To avoid confusion with the already established SCA
definition of a chevron enarched we have blazoned this
device using standard SCA blazon terms. If there is any question
about what this conjunction of chevrons looks like, we direct the
reader to Parker's Glossary under chevron inarched.
The book may be found in libraries and there is an on-line
version at
http://www002.upp.so-net.ne.jp/saitou/parker/jpglossc.htm#Chevron.
[Hákon Þorgeirsson, 02/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
This submission has been reblazoned by Laurel many times since it
was originally registered. ... Some commenters questioned the
blazon of the chief as urdy, as it has somewhat rounded
lines. This chief has consistently been blazoned as urdy in her
long and varied reblazon history, and at this point we are happy
to grandfather this odd depiction of urdy to this submitter.
However, should this somewhat "onion-domed" depiction of urdy be
presented by anyone else, it must be accompanied by
documentation. [Neptha of Thebes, 02/2003,
A-Caid]
[Per chevron throughout argent and gules, two frogs tergiant
vert and an increscent argent] The field drawn here is an
acceptable per chevron throughout field.

SCA precedent has been consistent, if somewhat unclear, regarding
per chevron throughout fields (which may have charges in
each portion of the field without violating any style rules) and
chapé fields (which may only have charges in the lower
portion of the field).

Both per chevron throughout and chapé fields have
the top of the line touch the top of the escutcheon. However, the
proportions of the rest of the line of division can make a
difference in whether the armory is viewed as per chevron
throughout or chapé in the SCA. If the line of division provides
a roughly equal balance between the top and bottom halves of the
field, it is considered a reasonable depiction of per chevron
throughout. If the line of division leaves the bottom half of
the field much larger than the top half, then it is considered
chapé. It is not uncommon for the bottommost charge on a
per chevron throughout field to be larger than the chiefmost
charge(s), but the bottommost charge should not be so large as to
force the field division up to the fess line and therefore
contribute to the appearance of a chapé field (requiring its
return).

As a general rule, the sides of a charged per chevron
throughout field hit the sides of the escutcheon
significantly lower than the fess line, while in charged
chapé fields, the line of division hits the sides of the
escutcheon at the fess line or higher. This follows from the need
for per chevron throughout fields to balance the top and
bottom halves of the field. Note the following precedent from the
LoAR of June 2002 (quoting, in part, an earlier precedent from
January 2000). This precedent is also consistent with earlier
precedents on the topic (bolded emphasis added):

The submission was blazoned on the LoI as Per chevron in chief.
It is a clear drawing of modern chapé: it's throughout
and high on the field. Note the following precedent:
"Listed on the LoI as having a per chevron line of division,
the location of the line of the division and the relative
sizes of the charges makes this an example of chapé.
Therefore, it must be returned ... for charging its upper
portions" (LoAR January 2000).

These precedents specifically set SCA policy for SCA
stylistic rules concerning charged fields which are per
chevron throughout and chapé. Period armory almost
never uses any charges on a chapé field. In period armory
using uncharged chapé fields, the line of division often extends
down so that the field division could be interchangeable with
per chevron throughout. Thus, we will continue to allow
the use of the blazon term chapé for uncharged armory
which resembles the period armory described above. [Aemilia
Sabine, 02/2003,
A-Calontir]
There is no difference between a single chevronelle and a
chevron; at this time we would blazon any single central
"chevronelle" as a chevron regardless of how narrowly it was
drawn, to be in keeping with period armorial practices.
[Aclina of Wyvern Heyghts, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
[in pale three labels couped] The armory depicts all three
labels in the top two-thirds of the escutcheon. These labels are
therefore not in the in pale arrangement (which would
distribute them equally across the shield). However, the labels
cannot be blazoned in chief, because that would place the
labels considerably higher on the field. The blazon term
enhanced only applies when there is a standard position on
the field for the charge (from which the charge has been moved
towards chief). There is no standard position on the field for
three labels, so enhanced is not meaningful in this
context. Thus, this device is not blazonable as drawn. At this
time, it appears that the armory would be acceptable if the three
labels were correctly drawn in pale, as indicated in the
blazon.

There was a question about whether it is acceptable to have
multiple labels in a piece of armory. This is not a common period
design but al-Jamal provided a number of period or near-period
examples from various sources. [Valentino da Siena,
03/2003,
R-An Tir]
[Per chevron] Please note that the line of partition was
originally blazoned as enhanced. The line is moved
slightly to chief from the most standard central position, but
that is a natural consequence of only having one charge in base.
The term enhanced has thus been removed from the blazon as
unnecessary. [Jon the Tall, 04/2003,
A-Meridies]
[a chevron between three towers argent and a fleur-de-lys]
The three towers would default, given this blazon, to lie in
chief. However, they are arranged somewhere between in
chief and one and two. This arrangement is not
blazonable and thus is not acceptable by RfS VII.7.b.
[Julienne de La Rochelle, 04/2003,
R-East]
We have removed the Linnaean species name from the blazon given
in the Letter of Intent, as we have not specified types of flora
or fauna with Linnaean designations for some years. [Dananir
bint Zang al Tabib, 05/2003,
A-Ealdormere]
[an eagle Or] We have removed the explicit armed
sable from the blazon; this is too small a detail to mention
on an eagle, and is invisible from any distance. [Heinrich von
Melk, 05/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Azure, a chevron argent charged with three roundels
azure] A number of comments were received about this blazon.
Blazons of the form On an [underlying charge] [a group of
tertiary charges] are equivalent to blazons of the form An
[underlying charge] charged with [a group of tertiary
charges]. The specifics of a particular piece of armory may
cause one form or the other to be more mellifluous, but there is
no generally applicable rule which indicates that one or the
other form of blazon is preferable. [Hildegardis filia
Vulframni, 07/2003,
A-Artemisia]
[a lion] The primary charge was originally blazoned as a
Chinese lion. We do not specify the artistic or ethnic
origin of a charge in blazon unless the modified blazon indicates
a significantly different type of charge from the unmodified
blazon. As an example where such an adjective indicates a
significantly different charge, an Oriental dragon is a sinuous
wingless monster, while the default dragon has wings and a much
more compact body.

Because of the wide range of depictions of lions in period, this
maned quadruped with clawed feet, fangs, and a long feathery tail
is sufficiently identifiable as a standard lion, and is therefore
blazoned as such. [Uggedei Mighan Nidun, 07/2003,
A-Artemisia]
From Wreath: Responses to Some Requests for Reblazon
In the last few months, we have received some requests for
systematic reblazon of certain types of blazon in the Ordinary
and Armorial. We thought we would set out Wreath and Laurel's
current philosophy regarding such requests for systematic
reblazon, and some of the specific requests.

There are two main reasons why armory is reblazoned. The first
reason is that the submitter requests the reblazon: these cases
are by their nature specific, and do not result in systematic
reblazons. The second reason is that some specific type of blazon
is so confusing that it will most likely not reproduce the
emblazon correctly. In this category we have the March 1997
reblazon of all the seahorses, natural seahorses,
or hippocampi to clearly indicate the type of charge, and
the January 2003 reblazon of all the trilliums to clearly
indicate the posture of the charge.

It is important to remember that while it is Laurel's right to
reblazon armory at any point, a person who already has many
scrolls on the walls using the original blazon may not wish to
have a reblazon. As a result, we have limited reblazons to cases
where the submitter has requested the reblazon or cases where the
original blazon is genuinely confusing. We tend not to initiate
systematic reblazons for less compelling reasons.

In some borderline cases, the issue of available time affects the
decision of whether to do the systematic reblazon. When we
reblazon armory, we always have to check in the files to ensure
that the reblazon is correct, even if the request only appears to
address a simple typographical error. (After all, just as when we
do visual comparisons, an examination of the file may find that
there is an error in the existing blazon that must be corrected,
which may have nothing to do with the original systematic
reblazon request). We are not blessed with much free time. We
note with thanks those persons who, when requesting a systematic
reblazon, are willing to do the (also time-consuming) preliminary
research to identify all the cases which may require reblazon,
rather than expecting Wreath and her staff to perform this work
as well.

It may be determined that, for reasons other than inaccurate
reproduction of emblazon, some particular blazon style is so
problematic that it requires a systematic reblazon. People
feeling strongly about any of the requests for systematic
reblazon listed below - or who have similar concerns that have
not yet been received - should write privately to Laurel and
Wreath.

In some cases, a member of the College requests a systematic
reblazon of some style of blazon which is not at all likely to
cause an error in the emblazon, although examples of the blazon
style in the Armorial and Ordinary may cause new heralds to
emulate the undesirable blazon style. For example, despite the
fact that (everyone, sing in unison!) "there is no 'e' in
contourny", the SCA has registered a number of blazons
using contourney. We have received one request to correct
all the "contourney" spellings. So far, we have not acceded to
this request, because contourney is interpreted correctly
by heralds and scribes and the submitters may not wish the blazon
to be corrected.

In some cases, a member of the College may request a systematic
reblazon of some blazon style to help with conflict checking. It
is (or should be!) generally understood that blazon is to some
extent a natural language as well as a technical language, and
the Armorial and Ordinary follows that language's accepted
variations. Thus, one finds SCA blazons that correctly represent
the same charge as, variously, a griffin rampant to
sinister, a gryphon segreant and sinister facing, or
a griffon contourny. One also finds heraldically identical
charges blazoned using terms that span the alphabet (and thus, a
section of the Ordinary), often due to the period practice of
canting. Thus, a picture of a particular type of stylized dog
might be blazoned as a brachet, a hound, or a
talbot.

It is important to remember that the Armorial and Ordinary's
primary purpose is to record names and blazons, not to provide a
data base for conflict checking. While some of our friends in
Library or Information Science dream of a controlled vocabulary
for SCA blazon, it is unlikely to happen in the Armorial and
Ordinary because so many people would have their blazons changed
without their request and so many cants would be removed. We may
someday, perhaps, see a "controlled vocabulary and normalized
style" blazon as an adjunct to the official blazon, used for
computer search purposes only. However, the magnitude of the
project, and the concerns about mistakenly introducing
discrepancies between the official blazon and the "controlled
vocabulary" blazon, have been prohibitive.

One request for reblazon has been made on the grounds that
similar armorial designs are not phrased similarly in their
blazons, which adds to difficulty in conflict checking. The
specific issue is the blazon of tertiary charges: the identical
designs (Fieldless) On a mullet gules a trefoil Or and
(Fieldless) A mullet gules charged with a trefoil Or do
not have identical blazons and will not be found next to each
other in the Ordinary. The request asked that all the "charged
with" blazons be changed to follow the "... on a ..." convention.
Because both blazon styles are clear, and because different legal
blazon choices routinely result in heraldically identical items
being phrased quite differently in blazon, we have chosen not to
implement this request.

One other request has been received from a few different people,
on the grounds that the blazon style may lead to incorrect
emblazons and that it is also difficult to conflict check. This
is the blazon style that reads Azure, a bend argent, three
estoiles in bend sinister counterchanged, rather than the
more usual Azure, on a bend between two estoiles argent an
estoile azure. Note that this blazon style may be misleading,
as it may lead a scribe to draw the estoiles so some part of an
estoile overlaps the edge of the bend (which is usually not the
case in the submitted emblazon). This blazon style is also
difficult to conflict check.

This request for systematic reblazon seems more compelling than
the other requests that have recently been received. We would
not, however, embark on such a significant reblazon without
getting the opinion of the College on whether it is necessary. It
is also important to note that it will be very time-consuming to
compile the list of items that may need to be re-blazoned in this
request. There is no handy keyword like "trillium" to use for a
search: it may be necessary to examine every piece of armory
using the word "counterchanged" to assemble the list of items
that might need reblazon. We also suspect there will be a large
number of items which need to be visually checked at the end of
the list compilation. It is important to note that in this
tenure, we do not expect that this project could be completed
unless the compilation of the initial list of items which may
need reblazon were performed by some volunteers other than Wreath
and her usual staff.

Reblazons of this blazon style may occur on a case by case basis
as they come through Wreath's office, as happened this month for
the submission of Christopher Jameson in the Midrealm section of
this LoAR, which came to the attention of the office for a
different reason. [08/2003,
CL]
[a badger rampant sable] The badger was originally
blazoned as sable marked argent, but it is predominantly
sable with only a few small argent details. We generally do not
blazon a charge as "marked" when the marking details are so
small. In addition, we might mistakenly give the impression that
large portions of the badger (such as its underside) are argent,
which might lead to emblazons that have inadequate contrast with
the argent field. [Gareth Craig, 08/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a tulip] The tulip was originally blazoned as a
Turkish tulip. However, this appears to be a reasonable
variant of the standard tulip and needs not be explicitly
blazoned. This particular stylization of a tulip is found in
period Middle Eastern art. [Kathy of Tir Ysgithr, 08/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[Argent crusilly formy] The SCA has been fairly consistent
about reblazoning a group of more than eight charges that evenly
covers a field or underlying charge as a group of strewn charges.
We have thus reblazoned this device from the original blazon of
ten crosses formy to crusilly formy. We note that
should this device be drawn on another shape for heraldic
display, such as a rectangular banner or a round shield, the
submitter will quite likely find that a different number of
charges will fill the space better. [Christgaen von Köln,
08/2003,
A-Caid]
The previous blazon ... misspelled the bretessed line of
division as betressed. Betressed is not an
acceptable spelling for this line of division. [Christopher
Jameson, 08/2003,
A-Middle]
[a fleur-de-lys] The fleur-de-lys was originally blazoned
as florency but the SCA does not blazon this sort of
artistic detail. Per the Cover Letter for the June 1993 LoAR
(dated July 1993):

Occasionally, the very diversity of the Society dictates that
some details shouldn't be blazoned. For instance, we don't
normally blazon the local drawing style: a fleur-de-lys is
blazoned a fleur-de-lys, whether drawn in the Italian style
(sometimes blazoned a fleur-de-lys florencée by modern heralds)
or the French style. In this way, we permit the broadest mix of
cultures; we don't micro-manage the scribes, but allow them the
fullest creativity and expression; and we make it possible for
someone to change persona without requiring a reblazon.

[Oriana Luisa della Francesca, 09/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
Seven charges on a stripe ordinary like a fess are too many to
explicitly enumerate, so the blazon has been changed from on a
fess ... seven compass stars to a fess ... semy of compass
stars. [Gabrielle von Strassburg, 09/2003,
A-Meridies]
[a bordure wavy] The blazon originally used the term
undy rather than wavy. We have reblazoned it to use
the more standard SCA term to avoid confusion. The term
undy is confusing for two reasons. One reason is that the
term undy sometimes represents a line of division (wavy)
and sometimes a field division (barry wavy). Brooke-Little's
An Heraldic Alphabet, p. 212, states: "Undy (also
Undé or Ondé) A synonym for wavy. It is not much
used today but in early blazon it was always employed, often
meaning barry wavy." The other reason that the term undy
is confusing is that it is prone to handwriting or typing errors,
and might easily be misinterpreted as the different field
division urdy. The SCA has previously chosen to avoid
error-prone terms. For example, it has chosen not to use the
error-prone term ermines (easily confused with
ermine), in favor of the less error-prone term
counter-ermine. [Ginevra Visconti, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]
There have been a number of requests in the commentary to modify
the gender used in referring to (for example) a sun in its
splendor or a moon in her plenitude. We allow suns to be either
masculine or neuter, and we allow moons to be either feminine or
neuter, and we will retain the submitter's blazon when feasible.
[10/2003,
CL]
In the last months we have often received commentary suggesting
that some charge should be reblazoned from a specific sort of
bird to a generic bird (e.g., reblazoning a hawk as a
bird). We remind the College that we should only reblazon
a specific sort of bird as a generic bird when the specific bird
truly cannot be identified as such. We also remind the College
that the reblazon to a generic bird has unfortunate side effects
for conflict. As noted on the LoAR of April 1998, "Blazoned on
the LoI as [a specific type of bird], as drawn it is not clearly
any species of bird, so we have reblazoned it as a generic bird.
Unfortunately, generic birds conflict with all birds, so this
conflicts with ..." When one proposes to reblazon an
imperfectly-drawn "hawk" as a generic "bird", it would lose an
often-critical type CD from past or future submissions using
swans, herons, chickens, peacocks, ostriches, hummingbirds,
penguins, and so forth. Never forget that the suggestion to
reblazon a specific bird as a generic bird is also a proposal to
reward a poor artist with an unwontedly huge slice of armorial
space. When we reflect on the quality of much period heraldic
artwork, which is rarely precise in its depiction of birds or
other animals, I think we can all agree that birds should only be
reblazoned as "generic" birds when there is no other
alternative.

We have also continued to receive commentary indicating that
ravens that are not drawn as "hairy" birds should be reblazoned
as generic birds. This suggestion does not match period armorial
style, which often depicts ravens as smooth-feathered birds.
Please refer to the cover letter to the January 2002 LoAR, which
discusses this matter in detail, including citations in
commonly-available heraldry books showing specific examples of
smooth-feathered/non-hairy corbies in period heraldic art.
[10/2003,
CL]
[Gules, three bendlets abased argent each charged with a
bendlet azure] Her previous armory submission was very
similar to this but was blazoned as using bendlets abased
azure fimbriated argent. That submission was returned for
using fimbriated charges that were not in the center of the
design, which is forbidden by RfS VIII.3. The submission is
blazoned as using bendlets each charged with a bendlet, and is
proportioned acceptably for that blazon.

Per the LoAR of February 2000, "In this case the blazon can make
a difference: while you cannot 'blazon your way out of' a
conflict, you can 'blazon your way out of' a style problem." In
the colored-in full-sized emblazon, the bendlets are identifiable
as bendlets (rather than part of a complicated bendy field), and
are not debased so far as to be unregisterable. [Ann
Busshenell of Tylehurst, 10/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
The mermaids were originally blazoned as respectant. We
understand the temptation to use the term respectant:
mermaids were often drawn in period so that they are slightly in
trian aspect and they can thus face each other to a small extent,
as these mermaids do. The LoAR of July 2001, ruling on an earlier
submission of this device, stated, "The device originally
blazoned the mermaids as respectant, but that implies that their
bodies are in profile as well. There is no way to indicate in the
blazon that the tails are symmetrical; the direction of the tail
is normally artistic license and not blazoned." We agree with the
previous ruling and have removed the term respectant from
the blazon. [James of Riverhold, 10/2003,
A-Calontir]
[Or, two foxes counter-salient in saltire purpure] His
previous blazon, Or, two foxes countersalient purpure, did
not clearly indicate that the foxes were in saltire. Although the
most common illustrations of two animals counter-salient show
animals which are counter-salient in saltire, research indicates
that animals counter-salient must face in opposite directions,
but are not in saltire by default. In addition, all the other SCA
blazons using counter-salient for this arrangement blazon the
animals explicitly in saltire. [Alfred of Warwick,
10/2003,
A-Middle]
[a horse's head couped] Some commentary suggested that the
head be blazoned in some fashion other than the default couped
because it was "not couped in the usual horizontal manner." We
direct the College to the Cover Letter of the November 2001 LoAR,
which discusses period treatments of both couped and erased in
some detail. Regarding the form of couped found in this emblazon,
the cover letter states that one of the period depictions was "a
straight line... [which could be] parallel to the side of the
shield." Because Francesca's horse's head is a primary charge,
drawn to fill the space, the bottom of the horse's head and neck
is near the sinister base portion of the shield. The angle of the
side of the shield in sinister base is approximately bendwise
sinister, and the couping of the horse's head in this emblazon is
roughly parallel to that sinister base portion of the side of the
shield. Thus, this is a period form of couping, and it is not
necessary to describe it further in blazon. [Francesca
Testarossa de' Martini, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[a tower argent] The tower was originally blazoned as
argent masoned sable. This depiction is acceptable
artistic license for a tower argent: as stated in the LoAR of
August 1992, "As with all charges of stonework, the masoning is
an artistic detail worth no difference." The submitter did not
blazon the masoning explicitly on the submission form, so we have
removed it from the blazon. [Gemma Meen, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[A ram statant gules] The ram was tinctured on the Letter
of Intent as gules armed Or. The horns of the ram are a
large enough artistic detail so that their tincture could be
blazoned (unlike the tincture of the hooves of the ram, which the
SCA always leaves entirely to the artist). However, the tincture
of the horns of the ram is not so important that it must be
blazoned. The submitter did not blazon the horns as Or on the
form, so we suspect the submitter would like to leave the
tincture of the horns to artist's license, and we have omitted
the arming tincture from the blazon. [Aaron Graves and
Alessandra Gabrielli, 12/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
The dogs were originally blazoned as mastiff hounds but
they should simply be termed mastiffs. From a heraldic
perspective, a mastiff and a hound are different types of dogs,
and the phrase mastiff hound is as nonsensical as the
phrase talbot greyhound. [Grimbrand Hundeman,
12/2003,
R-Calontir]
The submitter asked that the tails of the dragon be blazoned as
nowed in an Ormand knot [sic]. The SCA usually uses the
term Wake knot for this knot, but the term Ormond
knot is found as a synonym for this knot in standard
real-world and SCA sources (Brooke-Little's An Heraldic
Alphabet and the Pictorial Dictionary). Since the
submitter wants to use this alternate name for the knot, we have
acceded to her request, although we have fixed the spelling of
the knot to the documented spelling Ormond Knot.
[Symmonne Deccarrette de Villette, 01/2004,
A-An Tir]
Please note that when blazoning items in saltire, the
bendwise charge is blazoned first and the bendwise sinister
charge is blazoned second. [Malise of Sundragon, 01/2004,
A-Atenveldt]
[a pithon] This was originally blazoned as a
sea-python. Firstly, the bat-winged snake monster found in
this submission is blazoned as a pithon, and the
natural snake is blazoned as a python. Secondly,
this charge does not have a fish's tail, as one would expect from
a sea-pithon. The small detail at the end of the tail is not
large enough to require reblazoning this as a sea-pithon.
[Setembrina Bramante, 01/2004,
A-Northshield]
[a wolf's head] The wolf's head was originally blazoned as
ululant, a term used in SCA heraldry for a wolf in some
posture with its head pointed to chief and howling. In this
emblazon, the muzzle of the head is tilted to dexter chief, which
is a reasonable artistic variant for a plain wolf's head. We do
not believe that it is necessary to blazon a charge consisting
only of a head in profile as ululant. [Caitilín inghean
Sheáin, 01/2004,
A-Outlands]
[a sheaf of swords inverted Or banded argent] Parker,
under banded, states that the term "is used when two or
more objects (e.g. a garb or branches of a tree) are bound
together with a band of different tincture." [James Irvin,
02/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]
[A landscape (in pale sky azure, snow-capped mountains argent,
hills vert, prairie proper, and a wheat field proper) and on a
chief argent a cross gules] This armory posed some difficult
questions regarding blazon:

The arms of Alberta are not stylistically compatible with
pre-1600 heraldry, and are thus not easily described by SCA
blazon.

...

We are fortunate to have benefited by the efficiency and
kindness of the Canadian Heraldic Authority. The Chief Herald of
Canada, Robert D. Watt, provided the following information:

The most definitive information we have here is found on page
209 of Conrad Swan's, (now Sir Conrad Swan) landmark study
entitled 'Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty' (University of
Toronto Press, 1977). In the chapter on Alberta, Sir Conrad
notes that the arms were assigned by Royal Warrant on 30 May
1907 and were blazoned as follows: 'Azure, in front of a range
of snowy mountains proper a range of hills Vert, in base a
wheat field surmounted by a prairie both also proper, on a
chief Argent a St. George's cross.' The reference he gives is
College of Arms 175.127. As he was York Herald at the time of
writing and had full access to the records of the College, I
believe it is fair to assume that this blazon can be considered
absolutely accurate.

The real-world official blazon of the province of
Alberta is not clearly comprehensible from the perspective of SCA
blazon. It uses the term surmounted in a different way
than we do. It also assumes that the reader is aware that a St.
George's cross is, by definition, a cross (throughout) gules. We
have elected to reblazon the armory for the SCA, as we generally
do with important real-world armory when it is necessary. We have
left in the ambiguous proper tinctures for the wheat field
and the prairie, as this ambiguity seems to be part of the
definition of the armory. By blazoning this armory, exclusive of
the chief, as a landscape, we hope to make it clear for
future researchers that this armory is distinct from most
heraldic treatments (aside from issues of purely visual
conflict). The landscape is not, for example, equivalent to a
variant of a barry field, or some combination of bars, but it is
an excellent example of an overly pictorial design per RfS
VIII.4.a, that could not be registered to a new SCA submitter.
[Alberta, 02/2004,
A-Society for Creative Anchronism]
The crescents were blazoned as crescents pendant on the
LoI but crescents inverted on the submission form. We have
restored the submitter's preferred form. Both terms are
acceptable for use in the S.C.A. [Iror of Crystal Mynes,
03/2004,
A-Calontir]
[on a bend vert four bear pawprints argent and overall a bear
statant sable] We were at a loss on how to blazon this armory
in a way which would clearly re-create the emblazon and would
also be compatible with period armorial style. As blazoned, and
based on our knowlege of overall charges in period armory, we
would expect the four pawprints to be evenly placed on the bend,
and thus, we would expect overall bear to obscure some of the
four pawprints on the bend. However, all four pawprints are
visible. It is not possible to blazon the bend with a larger
number of pawprints, because there is enough of the bend showing
in between the bear's limbs to show that there are no pawprints
under the bear. [Appolonia Notburgen, 03/2004,
R-Calontir]

BOOK

[Sable, three
open books Or] This submission raised the question of whether
we should give difference between open and closed books. Both are
found in period armory: the open book in the arms of Oxford in
1585 and the closed book in the arms of Cambridge in 1572. There
are few books found in period heraldry, so it is not easy to
generalize about period distinctions between open and closed
books, although there is a fair amount of evidence showing that
Oxford and Cambridge consistently use their books in the open and
closed forms respectively in the 17th C and beyond.

Without evidence of period practice, we must rely on visual
distinction, and open and closed books are visually distinct.
This is therefore clear of conflict with ... Sable, a closed
book palewise Or, with one CD for changing the number of
books and another for open versus closed books. It is similarly
clear of conflict with ... Vert, three closed books palewise,
spines to sinister Or, with one CD for changing the field and
another for open versus closed books. [Emma in draumspaka,
03/2002,
A-An Tir]
[Azure, an open book and in base a bee argent marked
sable] This does not conflict with Yale University (important
non-SCA armory), Azure, an open book argent charged with
Hebrew letters sable. There is one CD for adding the
secondary bee, and another CD for removing the tertiary letters
from the book. As seen on p. 241 of Neubecker's
Heraldry-Sources, Symbols and Meanings, the Hebrew letters
on the books in the arms of Yale University are few and large,
and function as tertiary charges. In general, open books may be
drawn with numerous small writing marks as artistic license, the
writing so small that it could not be read from any distance, but
such writing would not be blazoned. [Branwen filia Iohannis de
Monmouth, 04/2002,
A-East]
Please advise the submitter to draw the open book so it does not
appear to be tilted back into the shield. [Cormac Mór,
02/2003,
A-Caid]
[a merman maintaining an open book argent fimbriated
gules] ... the maintained book may not be fimbriated. RfS
VIII.3 states, in part, "Voiding and fimbriation may only be used
with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the
design." An open book is not a simple geometric charge and it is
not in the center of the field in this device. Note that the book
was blazoned on the Letter of Intent as an open book argent
bound gules, but that blazon would not necessarily recreate
the fact that the binding fimbriates the book around all of its
edges. [Jens Sveinsson, 05/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) On a ribbon fesswise enarched gules the words
"verba volant scripta manet," overall an escallop Or] ... The
ribbon in this submission was originally blazoned as a
scroll. A scroll is not nearly as long and narrow
as a ribbon, and is proportioned more like a billet. Æthelmearc
has previously registered a badge using a scroll: Argent, on
an open scroll gules an "Æ" Or. The scroll in that submission
is drawn correctly and does not resemble this ribbon. Because
this charge is not the same charge as the previously registered
scroll, the grandfather clause does not apply to this
submission.

We note that there would be stylistic difficulties with armory
designed with a scroll... and overall an escallop. Due to
the shapes of these charges, any such design would have a large
amount of overlap between the scroll and the escallop, making the
escallop just "barely overall." By previous precedent, "Barely
overall charges have been ruled unacceptable for a long time and
for fieldless badges overall charges must have very little
overlap with the charge it surmounts" (LoAR of September 1999).
[Æthelmearc, Kingdom of, 08/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]

BORDURE

The
bordure here is much too thin to be acceptable. Each side of a
bordure is usually as thick as one-eighth to one-tenth of the
shield width, and this bordure is less than one-twentieth of the
shield width. Part of the problem is that the bordure was drawn
with a very thick black outline compared to the outlines on the
dragon's head. This outline cut into the white part of the
bordure and also had somewhat of an appearance of fimbriation.
[Magy McTerlach, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[Argent ... a bordure parted bordurewise indented argent and
sable] This sort of bordure has been registered in the arms
of Coileáin Olafsson (registered February 1991), Gules, a
sword inverted proper between a pair of lions' jambes couped Or
within a bordure parted bordurewise indented sable and Or. To
quote from the January 1990 LoAR (the return of Coileáin's
original device submission, which used an identical bordure),
"The bordure is a period usage, as noted by several commentors
who adduced a number of examples of bordures and other ordinaries
parted in this manner.".

The blazon for this unusual bordure treatment has been changed to
be consistent with Coileáin's registration. To quote that
acceptance: "The bordure was blazoned as 'indented-in-point' in
the LoI. The above blazon, though not quite as elegant, is
believed to be clearer.".

Please advise the submitter to draw the bordure so that the black
is all on the inside and the argent is all on the outside. In
Coileáin's bordure, each corner of the bordure is tinctured
entirely in the outside tincture. [Heinricus vom
Eichenhain, 12/2001,
A-Drachenwald]
[Per pale argent and sable, a human footprint sable and two
roundels in pale argent within a bordure vert] The device
raised questions about marshalling. RfS XI.3 states: "Armory that
appears to marshall independent arms is considered presumptuous."
Without the bordure, this would be returned for the appearance of
impalement, which is the display of two coats, side by side, to
show marital affiliation or tenure in an office.

Armory can avoid the appearance of marshalling by adding "charges
overall that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry"
(RfS XI.3.a). In late period, a bordure may be added to some
kinds of marshalled coats of arms as a mark of cadency: an
individual who bore quartered arms as his personal arms might
have a child who bore the quartered arms within a bordure. The
child's arms would still be marshalled. Thus, adding a bordure
will not remove the appearance of marshalling from quartered
arms.

However, impaled arms show marriage or tenure in an office. In
period, a second generation would not generally inherit the
impaled arms in that form. The component arms of two married
people might be inherited in a quartered form by a child, but
would not be inherited in an impaled form.

Bordures in impaled arms traditionally cut off at the line of
division. If one impaled the hypothetical arms Argent, a cross
fleury within a bordure gules and Gules, a lion within a
bordure argent, the resultant impaled armory would appear to
be Per pale argent and gules, a cross fleury and a lion within
a bordure counterchanged. As a result, armory using a per
pale line of division, a bordure, and different types of charges
on each side of the line of division will look like marshalled
arms if the bordure changes tincture at the line of division. It
may also look like marshalled armory if the bordure is a solid
tincture but has good contrast with both halves of the field. The
hypothetical arms Argent, a sword within a bordure sable
and Or, an eagle within a bordure sable would combine when
impaled to armory which would appear to be Per pale argent and
Or, a sword and an eagle within a bordure sable. Thus, the
only case in which a bordure may remove the appearance of
impalement from armory which would otherwise appear to be impaled
is if the bordure is a solid tincture and if it has poor contrast
with one half of the field. That is the case with this device.
[Pegge Leg the Merchant, 03/2002,
A-An Tir]
Bordures may be counterchanged over a gyronny field. We have many
period examples of bordures compony, which are almost the same in
appearance as bordures gyronny. Because the bordure
counterchanged has large enough pieces to maintain its
identifiability, and it looks like a common multiply divided
period bordure, it may be accepted without explicit documentation
of a bordure counterchanged on a gyronny field. [Wulfgar
Neumann, 03/2002,
P-Outlands]
[a bordure indented] This bordure differs somewhat from
the standard SCA bordure indented. This bordure indented is drawn
with the indentations extending all the way to the edge of the
shield, so that the indentations appear to be a series of
conjoined triangles issuing from the side of the shield. (Or,
alternately, drawn so that the bordure indented looks like the
outside portion of a bordure parted bordurewise indented.)
This bordure also has rather numerous small indentations (15 up
one side), but (unlike most cases which are returned for "too
many too small" indentations), the indentations are not too small
to be identifiable. The indentations in this emblazon are very
prominent and clearly visible. No explicit documentation was
provided by the College for this form of bordure, and a number of
commenters asked whether this was acceptable for SCA use.

Precedent has noted that period chiefs could be drawn with the
indentations "inwards" reaching all the way to the chief line:

The device was blazoned as having three triangles issuant
from chief. This style of indentation can be found in
period (for example Lowell of Balumbye (Lindsay of the Mount,
pl. 107)), but it was blazoned as either indented or
three piles. As current scholarship believes that such
chiefs were originally indented with deep indentations,
we decided to blazon it as indented and leave the depth
to artistic license (LoAR July 2000).

In addition, some period bordures indented
approached this depiction. The Milanese Stemmario
Trivulziano (second half of 15th C) has two coats of arms
using bordures indented where the indentations touch the outside
of the bordure: the arms of d[i] [L]uino de Barbati and the
second and third quarters of Dal Vermo. Each of these emblazons
has almost the same number of indentations up one side of the
escutcheon as in this emblazon. While we do not have a period
blazon for these arms, the modern blazon provided by the editor
of the text is indented.

Because the bordure in this emblazon has a clearly identifiable
indented line, and the artwork of the indentation is similar to
period indented chiefs and at least one period armorial's
depiction of an indented bordure, it is an acceptable variant of
a bordure indented. Please also advise the submitter that the
standard way to draw such a bordure through most times and places
in our period would have fewer and larger indentations and would
not have the indentations extend all the way to the outside of
the shield. If the submitter can find a blazon term to describe
this specific sort of bordure, and can show that it was
considered distinct from a standard bordure indented in period,
he may provide this documentation and make a request for
reblazon. [Ulf de Fribois, 10/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
Please note that the design of counterchanging a bordure over a
pile is considered "a weirdness" in the SCA - a single step from
period practice (per the LoAR of July 2001). One such step in
armory is acceptable, but more than one such step is considered
too far from period practice and reason for return. [Clef of
Cividale, 03/2003,
R-Calontir]
Please advise the submitter to draw the embattlements on the
bordure so that the height of the embattlements matches their
width. [Günther von Weißensee, 05/2003,
A-Meridies]

CANDELABRA

[a three-armed
candelabra vs. a nine-armed menorah] There is a CD between a
three-armed candelabra and a nine-armed candelabra. [Uilliam
of Bronzehelm, 11/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[a three-armed candelabra] This does not conflict with a
... (Fieldless) A trident Or. Both three-armed candelabra
and tridents are period heraldic charges. A candelabra much like
this one, where the outside arms form a U-shaped arc with the
center arm palewise, is found in the arms of von Krage on fol.
151 of Siebmacher. Tridents are found in the same book. A
similarly-outlined trident is found in the arms of von der Gabel
on fol. 149. A more angularly-outlined trident is found in the
arms of von Ebnet on fol. 114. Because the charges appear to be
distinct in period, and have some visual difference between them,
there is a CD between them. [Uilliam of Bronzehelm,
11/2002,
A-Artemisia]

CANTING

[(Fieldless)
A saltcellar shedding salt argent] ... given the period
canting badge of a daisy (also known as a marguerite) for someone
with the given name Marguerite, quite appropriate. (It makes
sense that canting badges, which are personal, might refer to the
given name, while canting arms, which apply to whole families of
people with different given names, apply to the surname.)
[Yseulte Trevelyn, 02/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a four-leaved clover saltirewise slipped vert] We have
blazoned this quatrefoil as a clover to preserve the cant.
[Ærne Clover, 08/2002,
A-An Tir]
The sage leaves cant on the submitter's surname, Salviati.
We have therefore blazoned them as sage leaves to preserve the
cant. [Dianora Salviati , 08/2002,
A-East]
[(Fieldless) On an apple gules slipped and leaved vert a Roman
capital letter B Or] This is an example of a type of canting
badge called a rebus, where the name is phonetically
represented by the emblazon. It was especially popular in
medieval England: a beacon issuant from a tun was the rebus of
Thomas Beckynton in the 15th C. Rebuses often included letters,
as in Catherine's badge. A 16th C rebus for John Oxney showed an
eagle (the symbol of the evangelist John), an ox, and the letters
"ne". The rebus badge of Sir John Peeche was a peach charged with
the letter "e". (Examples taken from Parker's A Glossary of
Terms used in Heraldry under Rebus.) [Catherine
Anne Applebey, 07/2003,
A-Calontir]

CARD PIQUE

[card
pique vs. crabapple leaf] A crab apple leaf (as per this
emblazon, and for that matter, the local apple tree) is a
standard leaf shape (slim pointed oval) with a finely serrated
edge. A crab apple leaf appears to be a non-period charge and
thus, under RfS X.4.e, the difference from a card pique must be
determined on visual grounds. There is significant difference (a
CD) between this leaf shape and a card pique but not substantial
(RfS X.2) difference. [Quentin de Rougemont, 11/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[card pique vs. seeblatt] No evidence has been presented,
and none has been found, indicating that seeblatter and card
piques were interchangeable in period. Prior precedent holds that
a seeblatt and a card-pique-shaped leaf inverted are different
enough on visual grounds to merit a CD. Per the LoAR of June
2003: "Since an aspen leaf is not a period heraldic charge, the
difference between an aspen leaf inverted and a seeblatt must be
determined on visual grounds per RfS X.4.e. There is sufficient
visual difference between these two charges for a CD. A seeblatt
is a heart-shaped leaf with the tip of the leaf to the base of
the shield, and with some sort of notch (often, but not always,
trefoil-shaped) taken out of the part of the leaf which is to
chief. An aspen leaf inverted is also a leaf with the tip of the
leaf to the base of the shield, but it has a very distinct stem
issuant to chief rather than a notch removed from the leaf."
Barring further information, it seems appropriate to rule,
analogously, that there should be a CD between a seeblatt
inverted and a card pique. [Quentin de Rougemont, 11/2003,
R-Ansteorra]

CASTLE and
TOWER

There is no difference between a tower and a
lighthouse given the varying depictions of towers and similar
architecture in period [Dun an Chalaidh, Shire of,
08/2001,
R-An Tir]
[Sable, a chess rook argent] This is clear of conflict
with ... Sable, a tower argent. There is substantial
difference between a tower and a properly drawn chess rook, so
RfS X.2 applies.

In the LoAR of October 1996, it was stated that there was
"nothing for the difference between a tower and a chess-rook".
This precedent is hereby overturned: a tower and a chess rook
were considered different charges in period and have substantial
visual difference. The period heraldic chess rook is drawn
consistently in a form where the top is forked into two prominent
curled points. This was a standard depiction for the period chess
piece, as illustrated in Caxton's 1474 "Game and Playe of the
Chesse". The period heraldic chess rook does not resemble any
sort of fortification and cannot be mistaken for a tower. On
examining the collated commentary for the October 1996 ruling, it
appears that perhaps the commenters mistakenly believed that the
particular chess rook in the possible conflict was drawn as a
tower, rather than as a period chess rook. [William
fitzBubba, 12/2001,
A-East]
[a tower argent masoned sable] Architectural charges made
of stonework such as towers, castles and walls may be drawn
masoned as a matter of artist's license. Therefore, there is no
additional tincture difference for adding or removing masoning
for these types of charge. [Gemma Meen, 01/2002,
R-An Tir]
[Or, on a tower pean a hawk's head erased Or] Conflict
with ... Or, on a tower per pale gules and azure, a compass
star Or. There is one CD for changing the tincture of the
tower but nothing for changing the type only of tertiary charge
by RfS X.4.j.ii, because a charged tower will not qualify for
this rule. According to X.4.j.ii, "A charge is suitable for the
purposes of this rule if (a) it it simple enough in outline to be
voided, and (b) it is correctly drawn with an interior
substantial enough to display easily recognizable charges."
Towers are not simple enough in outline to be voided. [Hawk's
Rest, Shire of, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[a castle argent] The castle was originally blazoned as a
tollgate. The castle as drawn here is similar to most
two-towered castles except that it has a crossbar across the
portal. It is thus almost indistinguishable from a standard
castle, and may be considered an acceptable artistic variant of a
castle.

We might have been willing to blazon this castle as a
tollgate, as the submitter desired, had documentation been
provided supporting such a blazon. However, no such documentation
was provided to Laurel. Such documentation would need to indicate
that a period tollgate would have a form that is standard enough
to allow recreation of the emblazon from the blazon. The one
named example of a period tollgate mentioned in the LoI, the
Micklegate Bar in York, is not described as a tollgate by the
current City of York. A picture of the Bar and a discussion of
its history may be found at
http://www.york.gov.uk/walls/1214th/micklegate.html, which is a
portion of the Web page discussing the city from the 12th through
14th centuries. The defining crossbar in this emblazon's tollgate
is not discussed in this Web site either. It appears that access
through the Bar was controlled, as usual for gatehouses, by a
portcullis. [Ian Cradoc, 09/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[two walls couped with portals] We have reblazoned the
castles as walls, because a castle by default has a
tower at each end, and these charges do not have any towers.
According to the Pictorial Dictionary, walls are
throughout and embattled by default, so it is necessary to blazon
these walls as couped. It is also necessary to blazon the portals
explicitly. [Hans Schneckenburg, 09/2003,
A-Caid]
[a tower argent] The tower was originally blazoned as
argent masoned sable. This depiction is acceptable
artistic license for a tower argent: as stated in the LoAR of
August 1992, "As with all charges of stonework, the masoning is
an artistic detail worth no difference." The submitter did not
blazon the masoning explicitly on the submission form, so we have
removed it from the blazon. [Gemma Meen, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]

CHARGE -- Maintained and
Sustained

Since the July 1992 LoAR, the term
maintaining has been used for grasped or held items which
are too small to be worth difference. Sustaining and
supporting have been used for a grasped or held item which
is of comparable visual weight to the item holding it, and thus
worth difference. In cases where other blazon words are used for
the act of holding an item, the blazon is ambiguous about whether
the held item is significant or not. It is true that the term
maintaining literally derives from a Latin phrase for
holding in a hand, and thus is not ideal for blazoning an item
which is held in the mouth, or by the tail, of an animal.
However, it seems preferable to remove the blazon ambiguity and
use the word maintaining in these cases. [Godwin
Alfricson, 08/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[A lion's jambe erased bendwise argent] A possible
conflict was called against the badge of Berhtrad Athalbrand von
Strassburg, (Fieldless) A lion's gambe bendwise erased argent,
sustaining by the blade a sword bendwise sinister sable. We
were asked to check the form to see that the sword was
sustained, rather than maintained (which is not
worth difference). Berhtrad's form shows that the sword is
correctly blazoned as sustained. Recall that the criterion
for a sustained charge, unchanged since the introduction of the
term sustained into SCA blazon, has been:

Either sustaining or supporting will be used when a "held"
charge is of comparable size to the beast holding it;
maintaining will continue to be used when the held charge is of
negligible heraldic difference. (Brayden Avenel Durrant, July,
1992, p. 6)

[Gala Cunningham, 09/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[a sea-lion sustaining a sword bendwise sinister] The
sword in this emblazon is as long as the sea-lion is tall. The
sea-lion has notably more visual weight than the sword because
the sea-lion is many times wider than the sword. This lead some
members of the College to question whether the sword should be
considered a maintained charge rather than a
sustained charge. However, there is precedent indicating
that the sword in this emblazon should be considered a sustained
charge:

[a bear rampant contourny sustaining a halberd]
Regarding the "significance" of the halberd, as Green Crown
noted, a charge consisting mostly of a long skinny handle will
always have difficulty matching the visual weight of other
charges, but here the sizes of the charges are about the same
as would be expected if they were in fess a bear and a
halberd. That seems to be a reasonable rule of thumb for
determining sustained (and qualifying for a CD), as opposed to
maintained (and not qualifying for a CD), charges. (LoAR
September 1994 p. 9)

In arms with a sea-lion and a sword in fess, the
sword would be as long as the sea-lion is tall. Therefore, this
sword should be considered a sustained charge. [Atlantia,
Kingdom of, 02/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Azure, a camel rampant Or wearing a hat gules and maintaining
in its mouth a bottle fesswise reversed vert] The hat (which
functions as a maintained charge) and the maintained bottle both
have insufficient contrast with the field. This is acceptable for
maintained charges, which are not worth difference, as long as
the charge in question has some contrast with the field.
[Xenos the Butcher, 06/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Purpure, a wyvern sejant maintaining a sword bendwise and in
chief two thistles argent] The sword is drawn in an
unrecognizable fashion. While the recognizability of maintained
charges is not expected to be as good as the recognizability of
primary or secondary charges, here the identifying hilt of the
sword lies entirely on the wyvern, which is the same tincture.
[William Cormac Britt, 07/2002,
R-Meridies]
[a sword proper supporting on its point a pair of scales]
Note that the LoAR of July 1992 gives both supporting and
sustaining as equivalent terms used to identify co-primary
charges: "Either sustaining or supporting will be
used when a "held" charge is of comparable size to the beast
holding it; maintaining will continue to be used when the
held charge is of negligible heraldic difference." [Conrad
Tolbert Regnault, 10/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[in pale a thistle proper issuant from a tower] We have
used the blazon phrase in pale to indicate that the
thistle and tower are co-primary charges. The blazon A thistle
proper issuant from a tower sable implies that the thistle
would be a maintained charge. [Derek of Ildhafn, 01/2003,
A-Caid]
[an arrow Or sustained by two stags combatant] The arrow
is much thinner than the stags, but it is as tall as the stags,
and the three charges could easily be blazoned as in fess. Prior
precedent indicates that because these charges are about the same
size as a group of charges in fess, the arrow is therefore a
sustained charge rather than a maintained charge:

[registering Azure, a bear rampant contourny sustaining a
halberd between, in chief, two mullets of eight points
argent.] Regarding the "significance" of the halberd, as
Green Crown noted, a charge consisting mostly of a long skinny
handle will always have difficulty matching the visual weight
of other charges, but here the sizes of the charges are about
the same as would be expected if they were in fess a bear and a
halberd. That seems to be a reasonable rule of thumb for
determining sustained (and qualifying for a CD), as opposed to
maintained (and not qualifying for a CD), charges. (LoAR
September 1994)

[Gearoid MacEgan, 08/2003,
A-Artemisia]
[Quarterly gules and azure, in bend sinister a Danish axe
sustained by a bear rampant contourny argent] This is clear
of conflict with the Barony of Bjornsborg, ...(Fieldless) A
bear statant erect reguardant contourny supporting a berdiche
blade to sinister argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness.
There is another CD for arrangement: the Bjornsborg bear and its
sustained axe are in the default arrangment for a statant erect
beast sustaining a polearm (in fess), while the charges in this
submission are in bend sinister. [Leifr Vagnsson, 09/2003,
A-Outlands]
This does not conflict with ... (Fieldless) A wyvern erect
supporting by its hub a wheel Or. There is one CD for
fieldlessness and a second CD for the supported charge. Per the
LoAR of July 1992, "Either sustaining or supporting
will be used when a 'held' charge is of comparable size to the
beast holding it; maintaining will continue to be used
when the held charge is of negligible heraldic difference."
[Godwin of Edington, 10/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[a talbot passant maintaining a cross of Calatrava] The
talbot was originally blazoned as sustaining the cross of
Calatrava. Per the Cover Letter to the LoAR of October 1996,
"Maintained charges are small and do not count for difference.
Sustained charges are large - large enough in fact that if they
were not being held that they would be considered a co-primary,
and do count for difference." In this case, while the cross of
Calatrava is not a miniscule charge, it is not large enough to be
considered a co-primary charge. It is smaller than the talbot
both vertically and horizontally and has notably less visual
weight than the talbot. Because the SCA's only choices for held
charges are to consider them to be sustained co-primary charges,
or to consider them maintained insignificant charges, and this
cross cannot be considered a co-primary charge, it must be
considered a maintained charge. [Susannah Griffon,
12/2003,
R-Calontir]

CHARGE --
Miscellaneous

The Pictorial Dictionary indicates that a
pair of deer's horns conjoined in this fashion may be blazoned as
a deer's attires or as a massacre. The former term
is closer to the submitted blazon. [Colin de Vire,
09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[Sable, three braziers Or enflamed proper] This submission
is clear of conflict with Seamus Gillemore, Sable, a brazier
argent flaming Or. There is one CD for changing the number of
the braziers. In both these armories the brazier pan is half the
charge. Therefore, three-fourths of the charge tincture has
changed: all of the brazier pan and half the tincture of the
flames. Changing half or more of the tincture of the charge group
is a second CD. [Sigmund Spelmann, 10/2001,
A-Lochac]
[tennis racket] There is a strong pattern of use of
constructed artifacts from all walks of life in period heraldry.
The type of tennis racket drawn here is late 16th C and, as the
defining example in the SCA, is now the default tennis racket.
[Bertrand du Beaumanoir, 11/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
The College could not find evidence for round artist's palettes
in period heraldry or as a period artifact. Without documentation
for a round palette, this charge may not be registered.
[Manuela Ponçe, 11/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[An open penannular brooch bendwise sinister Or] Conflict
with a badge of Brendan Mad, Vert, a round buckle Or.
There is one CD for the field. With the best will in the world we
could not give a CD between a round buckle and a penannular
brooch, when the outlines are so close to identical. Recall that
the direction of the pin of the buckle is artistic license.
[Bríd uí Chon na Mara, 11/2001,
R-Caid]
[an arm embowed and couped above the elbow] The arm as
drawn here blurs the distinction between a cubit arm and an arm
embowed. A cubit arm is couped just below the elbow, and an arm
embowed is couped just below the shoulder. This should be
resubmitted with a standard form of arm. [Anne Balfour of
Markinch, 12/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[a fanged tooth] As noted in the Pictorial
Dictionary, "In mundane heraldry, the tooth is normally
depicted as a human molar, with the roots extending to base
[736]; it is blazoned (somewhat confusingly) as a 'fanged
tooth'." [Owein Deykin, 01/2002,
A-Meridies]
[a pillar sable surmounted by a horse passant] While the
pillar and horse combination were universally found to be
evocative of a carousel horse, it does not appear to be so
obtrusively modern as to warrant return. Please note a very
similar design found in the period arms of v. König, Siebmacher
f. 146, Azure a pillar Or surmounted by a horse salient
argent. [Micaela Leslie, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A saltcellar shedding salt argent] ... given
the period canting badge of a daisy (also known as a marguerite)
for someone with the given name Marguerite, quite appropriate.
(It makes sense that canting badges, which are personal, might
refer to the given name, while canting arms, which apply to whole
families of people with different given names, apply to the
surname.)

According to the Pictorial Dictionary, when a saltcellar
is drawn shedding salt, the salt must be explicitly blazoned, and
so we have added that information into the blazon. We wish the
submitter better luck than we had in clearly enunciating the
phrase "Yseulte's saltcellar shedding salt by the seashore".
[Yseulte Trevelyn, 02/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[tripod pipkins] The charges in chief were blazoned as
pots on the LoI, and as pipkins by the submitter.
An SCA default pot lacks the prominent side handle and legs on
this charge. We have thus reblazoned them as tripod
pipkins. Tripod pipkins are small to medium sized pottery
vessels used for cooking from the 15th C. They are round vessels
with a horizontal handle and three legs in a tripod
configuration. The handle is to dexter by default.

For an easily available reference on pipkins, see The Medieval
Ceramic Industry of the Severn Valley, Alan Vince,
specifically chap. 7 (Pottery forms and Typology, subheading Food
Preparation Vessels, Pipkins). This unpublished thesis may be
found on-line at http://www.postex.demon.co.uk/thesis/thesis.htm.
Also according to this thesis, the same shaped vessel made of
metal (rather than of pottery) would be called a tripod
skillet by archeologists. A picture of a tripod skillet,
which is the same shape as these pipkins, may be found on p. 162
of The Medieval Household, Geoff Egan, Medieval Science
from Excavations in London: 6, to describe a vessel of this
shape. [Artemisia di Serena, 02/2002,
A-Caid]
[Gules, in pall inverted three feathers conjoined at the quill
argent] This is also clear of conflict with ... Gules, a
feather fan argent, handled Or. There is substantial
difference for purposes of RfS X.2 between a feather and a
feather fan. [Nakano Zenjirou Tadamasa, 02/2002,
A-Calontir]
After due consideration, the visual differences between tankards
and mortars and pestles are sufficient for a CD. [Elizabeth
Rea, 02/2002,
A-Meridies]
[a chaine shot] This depiction of the chaine shot is from
the 1611 edition of Guillim's A Display of Heraldrie,
which is within our grey area for documentation. The chaine shot
was found as a period item before 1600: the term
chaine-shot is found in the Compact Oxford English
Dictionary (new edition) dated 1581 under the heading
chain-shot. This emblazon matches Parker's depiction of
the same charge, showing that it became a standard depiction.
[Víkingr Járnhauss inn Hárlangi, 02/2002,
A-Merdies]
[a coffin] Coffins have only been registered twice in the
SCA, the last time in 1985. The coffins in this submission, as in
the previous submissions, are six-sided shapes following the
outline of the top of a hexagonal coffin palewise. Thus, the
basemost side ("foot") is narrower than the chiefmost side
("head") and the wide point separating the other four sides is at
shoulder height. A number of commenters asked whether this was a
period coffin shape and whether coffins were found in period
heraldry.

No evidence was presented, and none could be found, for coffins
as charges in period heraldry. Given the wide diversity of
constructed items found in period heraldry, a coffin should be an
acceptable charge as long as it is drawn so that it would be
recognizable to a period viewer as a coffin.

No evidence was presented, and none could be found, that the
shape in this submission was a period coffin shape. Some
documentation for coffins was found, consisting of pictures of
coffins in illuminated manuscripts showing funeral services,
pictures of existing funeral palls in embroidery references (used
for draping over a coffin), and a description of one existing
child's coffin c. 1400. These references all showed coffins with
four-sided tops. The tops were mostly rectangular, but some
coffins had trapezoidal tops, so that the "head" was wider than
the "foot". Without documentation for the shape of coffin in this
submission, it may not be registered.

The coffins in illustrations of funeral services were all shown
from the side (during the service, or carried by pallbearers).
The top-only view of the previous coffin registrations therefore
seems somewhat unlikely. Future attempts to register coffins
should not only address the shape of a period coffin, but should
address how a period coffin would be drawn so that a period
viewer would recognize it as a coffin (rather than another sort
of box or chest). [Constance MacLeod, 02/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[a pickaxe argent hafted ... proper] The pickaxe,
following the proper defined for axes in the Pictorial
Dictionary, has a haft of wood proper. [Óláfr Ljótarson af
Øy, 02/2002,
R-Meridies]
[an aeolipile argent and in base a flame proper] The
aeolipile is a primitive steam engine, described (and
possibly invented) by Hero of Alexandria in his
Pneumatica, written in approximately 150 B.C. This work
was translated into Italian by Aleotti in 1547, although the work
became best known through a Latin translation by F. Commandine in
1575. An English translation of this work is available at
http://www.history.rochester.edu/steam/hero/index.html. Section
50 shows the steam engine and the translator's preface provides
useful information about the history of the manuscript.

The aeolipile has a small sphere on the top. The sphere rotates
due to jets of steam which issue from two bent tubes on opposite
sides of the sphere. The sphere rests on a large closed basin
which is heated to produce the steam. The basin is generally
drawn in a form resembling a covered footed cauldron. The basin
is apparently heated by a fire placed under the basin, between
its feet.

In all the illustrations provided in the documentation provided
with the submission, and in the excellent citations provided by
Eastern Crown, the basin is larger than the sphere. In this
submission, the basin is much smaller than the sphere (and would
probably not generate enough steam to rotate the sphere). The
basin in this emblazon is not only small, but it has an unusual
shape: it is shaped like a shallow, wide trapezoid, without any
supporting feet. The overall outline of the charge is therefore
substantially different from those in the illustrations of the
aeolipile, and it cannot be considered an acceptable emblazon of
an aeolipile.

The illustrations of aeolipiles in the documentation are
consistent enough that a correctly drawn aeolipile should be
acceptable for registration. The exact disposition of the steam
shooters on the sphere should be left to the artist rather than
explicitly blazoned. The flame under the basin is not an integral
part of the aeolipile charge: it is present in some illustrations
and omitted in others. If present in the armory it should be
explicitly blazoned, as was done in this submission. [Ann of
Banningham, 04/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Sable, a flint between four furisons in saltire steels to
center Or] The flint emits small tongues of flame, which are
part of the standard depiction of the flint. The exact nature and
disposition of the flames is artistic license. The easiest place
to find the combination of furisons and flints in period heraldry
is in items of Burgundian origin, because the furison and flint
combination is a Burgundian badge. See, for example, the picture
of a Burgundian Standard from 1476-1477 (although painted in
1616) in Colin Campbell's Medieval Flags, p. 17, where the
flint and steel are shown around the picture of S. Thomas at the
hoist and incorporated elsewhere on the standard. In that
example, as with this armory, the flames emitting from the flint
are strewn to quite some distance away from the flint itself. The
flint and furison also are used in the collar of the Order of the
Golden Fleece. The collar is of linked flints and furisons. Each
flint is between the steels of two respectant furisons. Due to
the limitations of the metal medium of the collar (which requires
that all the pieces be conjoined), the flames are only conjoined
to the flint in the livery collar instead of being strewn out to
a further distance. One nice portrait showing the collar of the
Order is that of Antoine the "Grand bâtard" of Burgundy by Rogier
van der Weyden in 1449, which is figure 250 of Lorne Campbell's
Renaissance Portraits. [Julianna Neuneker Hirsch von
Schutzhundheim, 05/2002,
A-Caid]
[a trebuchet at full release] ... please note that the
trebuchet drawn here is not the SCA default sort of catapult or
in its default posture. As noted in the Pictorial
Dictionary:

The type [of catapult] in most common use in medieval times was
called a "trebuchet" or "swepe": powered by gravity, it used a
long lever arm and a heavy counterweight. This is the most
common type in Society heraldry... All types of catapult are
depicted by default in their "rest" position, with the arm
neither cocked and ready, nor at full release.

The catapult here drawn here does appear to be of
the trebuchet variety, but it does not have a "long lever arm".
Other catapult research has shown that the Pictorial
Dictionary is correct in its statement that trebuchets have
long lever arms. The illustration in the Pictorial
Dictionary shows a lever arm that is roughly three times
longer from the pivot to the basket (for the projectile) than the
length from the pivot to the counterweight. The trebuchet in this
submission, in contrast, has a short lever arm. The length of the
arm from the pivot to the basket is less than than the length
from the pivot to the counterweight. This changes the overall
visual proportions of the charge (as well as, we strongly
suspect, its physics) so substantially that in order to register
this emblazon we would need documentation for this form of
catapult.

The posture of the catapult is also not the default "rest"
position (with the lever arm bendwise sinister, with the
counterweight in dexter base and the basket in sinister chief),
but at full release (with the lever arm palewise, with the
counterweight to base and the basket to chief). We have thus
blazoned the posture of the catapult explicitly. [An Tir,
Kingdom of, 05/2002,
R-An Tir]
A ribbon is not an acceptable heraldic charge. To quote the
summary of the September 1994 analysis: "There seems to be no
compelling reason to register the ribbon as an heraldic charge"
(LoAR 9/94, pp. 15-16). Please see that LoAR for more details
about the ribbon as a heraldic charge. [Ophelia Osborne,
05/2002,
R-Meridies]
The Pictorial Dictionary notes that a scourge has three
lashes and the handle to base by default. This scourge is drawn
with the lashes separated widely, so the three lashes and handle
form somewhat of a cross, although the tips of all three lashes
bend towards the chief. The usual depiction of a scourge (as in
the Pictorial Dictionary) shows the lashes closer
together, mostly pointing to chief. This seems like a reasonable
artistic variant of the default scourge, particularly given the
space this charge must fill. [Laura de Givet, 06/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Sable, a valknut inverted argent] The Letter of Intent
asked us to rule on whether the valknut should continue to be
registered. As noted in the LoAR of September 1993, the valknut
is a period artistic motif which was not used in period heraldry.
It was incorporated into SCA heraldry and has been registered
infrequently but steadily thereafter. The September 1993 argument
in favor of the valknut's registration appears to continue to
hold true. It is identifiable when inverted, just as a triangle
is identifiable when inverted.

Would-be users of the valknut should take note of the fact that
its "thin-line" nature can make it difficult to identify. Poor
contrast, small size or overlying charges are all likely to
render it unidentifiable. Since this device uses the valknut as
the only charge on a high contrast field, it maintains its
identifiability splendidly. [Esteban de Quesada, 06/2002,
A-Lochac]
[bear's paw prints] There were some other concerns about
the artwork. Pawprints do not show this degree of disarticulation
in nature: generally the 'toes' may be separated from the 'pads'
but there is no separation between the joints of the toes in the
pawprint. This emblazon shows too many separate pieces of the
toes to be a pawprint. Charges should be drawn either in a period
heraldic stylization (where available) or in a recognizable
naturalistic style. Since pawprints are not found in period
heraldry, it is all the more important that they be drawn
recognizably. [Dagun Karababagai, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[a hawk's bell] The bell was originally blazoned as a
crotal bell. A crotal bell, according to the Oxford
English Dictionary, is a "small globular or pear-shaped bell or
rattle, the nature and use of which are obscure". The word
crotal dates from the 12th C. Because the term
crotal bell is not found in most common dictionaries of
the English language, and because it is not a standard heraldic
term, we have blazoned the bell as a hawk's bell, the
standard heraldic term for this charge. [Remus Fletcher,
08/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Or, a pair of eyeglass frames sable] The defining
eyeglasses in the SCA are in the armory for the Order of the Grey
Beard (originally registered in Meridies in August 1984, since
transferred to Trimaris): Per pale sable and azure, in saltire
a crutch Or and a sword inverted proper, in chief a pair of
eyeglasses argent, stringed Or. The eyeglasses in that
submission have solid argent lenses and Or strings for the
earpieces and nosepiece. This indicates that the default SCA
eyeglasses have solidly tinctured lenses, rather than transparent
lenses. This matches other SCA practices for glass charges, as
noted in the following precedent: "The lantern with its
transparent 'glass' is not done in a period manner. As was noted
in the commentary, the College has a long history of disallowing
transparent objects." (LoAR August 1991 p.22).

A pair of eyeglasses blazoned with a single tincture should thus
be emblazoned with the lenses and the frames in that single
tincture. It is also acceptable to have the frames of eyeglasses
in a different tincture than the lenses. A standard SCA blazon
for such a design would be (for an example with an Or frame and
vert lenses) A pair of eyeglasses Or lensed vert. Note
that research on period eyeglasses shows that early eyeglasses
invariably had frames: it does not appear that the eyeglasses in
the badge for the Order of the Grey Beard, without any frame to
rigidly hold the lenses in place, are a period sort of
eyeglasses. As a result, a pair of eyeglass frames is also
an acceptable charge. In such a charge, there would be no lenses
present, and the field would show through where the lenses would
ordinarily be.

This submission could either be blazoned as a pair of
eyeglasses sable lensed Or or a pair of eyeglass frames
sable. Since the submitter also has a fieldless badge using
black eyeglass frames and missing (or transparent) lenses, the
latter term has been used for both pieces of armory. [Edward
Glass, 08/2002,
A-East]
[on a chamfron azure a cross patonce argent] Please advise
the submitter to draw a more standard chamfron. Chamfrons in
heraldry generally have a more distinct "scoop" where the eyes
are. Chamfrons in heraldry generally have rounded bottoms to
follow the outline of the horse's nose, rather than squared
bottoms as in this emblazon.

Most chamfrons in period heraldry do not include pieces covering
the horse's ears. While the SCA accepts chamfrons with ear
pieces, the ear pieces hamper the identifiability of the charge
and should be drawn with care.

In this emblazon, both the chamfron and the charge on it maintain
their identifiability. Therefore, this submission may be
registered, even though in the past a particular piece of armory
was returned because the charge on the chamfron interfered with
the identifiability of the underlying chamfron. As a general
rule, adding a tertiary charge to an underlying charge should not
interfere with the identifiability of the underlying charge, and
any such interference may be a reason for return. [Constancia
Tattersall, 09/2002,
A-An Tir]
[a toy top Or charged with a bar embowed to base purpure]
This is the SCA's defining instance of a toy top. It is shaped,
roughly, like an inverted onion dome. This shape of top is shown
in the Brueghel painting of 1560, "Young Folk at Play (Children's
Games)", which can be seen at
http://www.ahs.uwaterloo.ca/~museum/Brueghel/tops.html.

The bar on the top was originally blazoned as a "stripe", with a
suggestion that it be an artistic detail. Because the stripe is
so prominent, much more prominent than the stripes on tigers or
other animals for which striping is an acceptable artistic
detail, the stripe functions as a tertiary charge and must be
blazoned accordingly. [Máire of Skye, 10/2002,
A-East]
[an hourglass] The College of Arms generally felt that the
hourglass would be more recognizable with vertical posts on the
sides of the frame. This hourglass is drawn with the standard top
and bottom plate, but without any vertical side posts holding the
top and bottom plates together. However, hourglasses without side
posts were noted to be a "standard Society depiction" of an
hourglass, so this depiction is acceptable: "...with the
hourglass drawn in one of its standard Society depictions (i.e.,
without the posts)" (LoAR 26 November 1989). We encourage the
submitter to draw future renditions of the hourglass with the
posts to enhance the identifiability of the charge. [Nathaniel
Grendel the Red, 11/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[an eye] The eye was drawn with an arc of dots hovering
over the top of the eye roughly where one would expect the lashes
to end. We know of no way to blazon these dots, but they were so
small that they are being treated as an unblazonable artist's
detail. [Nadira bint Rashid, 12/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[a two-man cross-cut saw] The saw in this submission is
not the default frame saw as shown in the Pictorial
Dictionary. This saw has a fesswise blade with teeth at the
bottom and a handle at each end extending up over the back of the
blade. This sort of saw is illustrated in Hans Sachs and Jost
Amman's 1568 Book of Trades for der Zimmerman (the
carpenter). In the 1973 Dover edition of this book, the
illustration is on p. 95. The Book of Trades does not name
this saw; other research suggests that it be termed a two-man
cross-cut saw and we have so blazoned it. [Tancred of
Tangewood, 12/2002,
A-Ealdomere]
The cloud is not drawn in a period manner and is not acceptable:
"Additionally, the cloud here is not drawn in a period manner,
but is the modern "cotton candy" form of cloud." (LoAR February
1994 p.18). [Mara Fae, 12/2002,
R-Outlands]
The nail was originally blazoned as a glazier's nail. The
standard SCA term, which matches the term used in the blazon of
the Worshipful Company of Glaziers, is closing nail.
[Alianor atte Red Swanne, 01/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[Sable, a lion's tail nowed in a Cavendish knot Or] The
College had significant concerns with the identifiability of the
lion's tail as drawn here. Lion's tails are mostly identifiable
due to the prominent tuft at the end of the tail. This nowed tail
does not have a prominent tuft at the end. There is some
"feathering" along the rest of the tail, but this is insufficient
to allow the charge to be identified as a lion's tail. This needs
to be redrawn with an identifiable lion's tail.

The Cavendish knot is a standard knot for a nowed tail, but the
exact type of knot is generally artist's license. Because in a
tail-only charge the type of knot has significant visual impact,
we have blazoned the type of knot explicitly.

This does not conflict with ... Pean, a lion's tail
queue-forchee erect Or. There is one CD for changing the
field. When the tails are charges by themselves (rather than
being attached to a lion), there is CD for the difference between
a tail nowed and a tail queue-forché that is not nowed. [Sadb
ingen uí Cherbaill, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
No documentation was presented for a piece of paper as a heraldic
charge. The charge drawn here is a four-sided charge at an angle
between palewise and bendwise sinister. The chiefmost and
basemost sides of the charge are slightly embowed-counterembowed,
and the other two sides are straight. This therefore cannot
easily be reblazoned as a lozenge, billet or other standard
heraldic charge. Without documentation for this charge, and
because of its intermediate orientation between the standard
heraldic orientations, it may not be accepted. [Jacobina of
White Moor, 01/2003,
R-East]
Baker's peels are wood-colored when proper. [Atlantia, Kingdom
of, 02/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[two brushes in saltire sable bristled "brown"] The
brushes in the Letter of Intent were blazoned as sable handled
proper. However, the brushes in the emblazon have sable
handles and brown bristles. There is no defined default tincture
for an artist's brush. Thus, this is not a reasonable depiction
of a proper brush. As the brush cannot otherwise be blazoned
accurately, it must be returned. [Dorothea Manuela Ponçe,
02/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a candle fesswise] With the best will in the world, we
could not identify the charge in chief as a candle or as any
other heraldic charge. This is not acceptable by RfS VII.7.a. A
lit candle is much easier to identify, as the flame helps the
overall identifiability of the charge. It is possible to draw an
unlit candle in an identifiable fashion but this candle is drawn
unusually, with spiky shapes at the wick end (possibly meant as
wax drippings) that confuse the outline of the charge. Candles
are almost always depicted palewise, so the unusual orientation
of the charge may also contribute to the difficulty in
identifiability. [John Chandler, 02/2003,
R-Middle]
[beacons enflamed] The submitter has drawn the beacons
with the standard fire-basket on top and the standard supporting
poles. The beacons do not include a ladder from the base of the
charge to the basket.

The ladder is mentioned as part of the charge in all the period
real-world sources we have found that illustrate or describe a
beacon, and also in the Pictorial Dictionary. Please
advise the submitter to draw the beacons with a ladder.

The submitter has also drawn the beacons with a small flat piece
of ground under the legs of the beacon. We were not certain
whether this should be an acceptable variant of the charge. None
of the sources stated that a beacon should have ground beneath
the legs of the tripod. However, Fox-Davies' A Complete Guide
to Heraldry depicts the beacons with such a small piece of
ground beneath the legs. In addition, Guillim (second edition,
1632) depicts the beacon with a supporting cross-bar beneath the
legs. The piece of ground depicted here is not much larger than
the reinforcing cross-bar in the Guillim illustration. In SCA
registration history, beacons have been registered with the small
piece of ground under the legs, as in the arms of Gunnar
Eriksson.

While the piece of ground under the legs of the beacon is not
standard, and should not be encouraged, the SCA and real-world
examples imply that it is a registerable artistic variant of the
charge. [Wenyeva atte grene, 03/2003,
A-An Tir]
[on a Mongolian yurt argent an owl sable] Please also
advise the submitter to be careful when drawing the yurt. Yurts
generally have a visible door flap, and do not have such
pronounced vertical bar details (which presumably depict seams).
The combination of the bird and the depiction of the yurt led
some commenters to perceive this emblazon as an owl and a
birdcage, rather than an owl and a yurt. [Alfgeirr skytja,
03/2003,
A-Calontir]
The charge blazoned by the submitter as a Lombardic
griffin was taken from a 7th C shield ornament found in a
grave. The term Lombardic griffin was from a museum Web
site that described the shield ornament. The charge looks
somewhat like a bird close with its head down, its back humped,
and an unusually stylized face (more like a sheep's face than a
bird's face).

RfS VII.2 states that "Use of an element in period art does not
guarantee its acceptability for armory." The College felt
strongly that this artistic element from period is not compatible
with period heraldic design and is thus not acceptable for SCA
armory.

The College also felt that the "Lombardic griffin" charge
submitted here could not be considered an acceptable artistic
variant of a standard heraldic charge (such as a generic bird
close). It certainly is not an acceptable artistic variant of the
heraldic griffin, which is a winged quadruped with the back half
of a lion, the front half of an eagle (including eagle foreclaws)
and mammalian ears (generally, but not always, drawn as pointed
ears in period).

As this charge is not a variant of a period heraldic charge, and
is not an artistic motif which is compatible with heraldic style,
it may not be accepted. [Clef of Cividale, 03/2003,
R-Calontir]
[An armored leg erased at the calf argent in a stirrup with
leather Or] .... it was difficult to identify the stirrup.
Stirrups in heraldry are generally drawn as affronty charges
rather than charges in profile as this stirrup is drawn. The
stirrup, of course, is forced to be in a profile position because
the leg is through the stirrup, and the leg is in profile. Still,
please advise the Kingdom to take care to draw the stirrup so
that it is clearly identifiable.

Please also advise the Kingdom that the leather through the top
of the stirrup would be more identifiable if it were drawn with a
clearly visible buckle, or even if it were twisted to show the
strap face on rather than from the side. We have explicitly
blazoned the leather as, according to the Pictorial
Dictionary, the default stirrup in the SCA does not include
the leather. [Middle, Kingdom of the, 03/2003,
R-Middle]
[a hawk's hood facing to dexter] Some members of the
College had concerns about the identifiability of the hawk's
hood, and asked if it should be considered an acceptable charge.
As noted in the Pictorial Dictionary, "Though a period
artifact, the hawk's hood was evidently not used in period
armory. It doesn't seem to have a default posture: the
illustration. . . shows a hawk's hood facing to dexter." RfS
VII.3, "Period Artifacts", states: "Artifacts that were known in
the period and domain of the Society may be registered in armory,
provided they are depicted in their period forms." As a period
artifact, a hawk's hood is an acceptable charge, as long as it is
drawn in a period form. The hawk's hood as drawn in this
submission (which is very similar to the one in the Pictorial
Dictionary) is drawn in a period form, and was quite
identifiable to people at the meeting who had some knowledge of
falconry (which was a very popular sport of the nobility in
period).

The device does not conflict with ... Argent, six hawk's heads
erased azure armed Or. There is a CD for changing the number
of charges. RfS X.4.e states: "A charge not used in period armory
will be considered different in type if its shape in normal
depiction is significantly different." As a hawk's hood was not a
period charge, we must compare the normal depictions of a hawk's
head and a hawk's hood to determine the difference between them.
The shape of a hawk's head, with its prominent beak, is
significantly different than the shape of a hawk's hood, with no
protruding beak. There is thus a CD between a hawk's head and a
hawk's hood. [Edmund Wolfe, 07/2003,
A-Atlantia]
Please advise the submitter to draw the spear tips so that they
are clearly spearpoints, rather than lozenges. Spear tips are
drawn with a more pronounced attachment (ferrule) at the bottom
of the charge, and are more elongated than the charges drawn
here. [Celestine Albret de Morat, 08/2003,
A-Meridies]
The triangle inverted voided ployé fleury at the points
azure may have been considered a single charge in German
armory. However, this single charge is not heraldically distinct
from three fleurs-de-lys conjoined in pall azure. We do
not give difference between three charges and three conjoined
charges when both groups of charges are in in the same
orientation and arrangement. This is noted in the following
precedent, which specifically treats of charges in annulo: "There
is no difference between charges in annulo and charges in annulo
which are also conjoined, although the conjoining must be
blazoned when present" (LoAR January 2002).

As a result, this only has one CD from ... Or, three
fleurs-de-lys in pall bases to center azure. There is one CD
for fieldlessness but nothing for conjoining the fleurs-de-lys.
[Sonnet Manon, 08/2003,
R-An Tir]
[three tanner's bench ends] The SCA has not yet registered
a tanner's bench end, and thus if this were registered, it
would be the defining instance of this charge in the SCA. No
documentation was provided in the LoI for this charge. The
College was consistent in stating that it is necessary to
document a defining instance of a charge as noted in a number of
precedents, for example: "This is being returned for lack of
documentation. We can find no indication that a 'muffin cap' has
ever been registered before in the SCA. As a consequence, this
would be the defining instance of the charge. Previous Laurel
Sovereigns of Arms have held new charges to the same standard of
documentation and have return them for lacking it, c.f. a winch
(Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR 9/92, p. 42), a Mongol helm
(Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR 12/92, p. 15), a zalktis
(Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR 1/93, p. 28) and a Viking
tent arch (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 5/94, p. 17)" (August 1997 LoAR,
p. 16).

Although the LoI did not provide documentation for this charge,
the submitter's form noted that the tanner's bench end is
described in Neubecker's Heraldry, Sources Symbols and
Meaning on p. 138. This page depicts two charges on
escutcheons, one appearing to be an inversion of the other. The
one on the sinister-most escutcheon is the same as the charge
submitted here as a tanner's bench end. The caption for
these illustrations states, "The heraldic documents which have
been handed down to us contain many a secret. Many everyday
objects remain unidentified. Often the profession or the name of
the bearer of the arms holds their explanation. Though obscure,
the two figures on these escutcheons are actually front ends of
the special benches on which the tanners stretch their hides to
clean them." Neubecker also provides a picture of a tanner's
bench.

Unfortunately, Neubecker does not provide a date for these
charges, for the illustrations of the charges, or for the
tanner's bench. As a result, we cannot use the documentation
provided by the submitter to demonstrate that tanner's bench ends
were used in period heraldry. Nor can we demonstrate that a
tanner's bench is a period artifact, and that the end of the
bench would be a reasonable separatable piece of the artifact to
use as a heraldic charge. Wreath and her staff did some further
research but were unable to document this charge outside of the
one citation from Neubecker mentioned above.

We thus do not have sufficient evidence to show that a tanner's
bench end is a charge that is compatible with period heraldry. It
is certainly quite unfortunate that the Letter of Intent omitted
the submitter's documentation from Neubecker, which may have
helped the College with its researches, but the College did
research this charge and did not find it. While it would not
surprise us to learn that this charge was period, without
adequate documentation for this charge, this device must be
returned. [Ormwyn of Aclei, 09/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[two teapots spouts to sinister] This submission would be
the defining instance of a teapot in the SCA. Precedent is
consistent in indicating that defining instances of charges need
to be documented as being appropriate for SCA use: "This is being
returned for lack of documentation. We can find no indication
that a 'muffin cap' has ever been registered before in the SCA.
As a consequence, this would be the defining instance of the
charge. Previous Laurel Sovereigns of Arms have held new charges
to the same standard of documentation and have return them for
lacking it, c.f. a winch (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR
9/92, p. 42), a Mongol helm (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR
12/92, p. 15), a zalktis (Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, LoAR
1/93, p. 28) and a Viking tent arch (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 5/94,
p. 17)" (LoAR August 1997, p. 16).

The provided documentation does not clearly document the "teapot"
vessel used in this submission as being appropriate for SCA
heraldry:

The depiction of the vessel in the submission was not
documented as having been used in Western Europe in
period. The vessel depicted here resembles a common form
of modern teapot: it is a squat cylindrical vessel, with a
domed top (with a ball handle in the middle of the top), a
"[" shaped handle on the dexter side of the cylinder, a
curved spout coming up from the lower part of the sinister
side of the cylinder, and a short wide flared foot extending
down from the bottom of the cylinder. No documentation was
presented or found indicating that this form of vessel was
known in Western Europe in period, either under the name
"teapot" or under another name.

No evidence was presented that a teapot would have
been known in Western Europe before 1600. The research on
the history of tea in the West (as provided by the submitter,
the College, and Wreath's staff) reached the general
consensus that tea arrived in Europe via the Portuguese
directly from China in the early or mid 17th C. Thus, unlike
coffee (which was present in the neighboring Middle East
during our period, and known to Western Europeans), it is
quite likely that the beverage now known as tea, and any
vessels used to brew it, would not have been known to Western
Europeans in our period.

Until documentation is provided showing that this
vessel is a vessel which was known to Western Europeans in
period, it may not be registered. The vessel may only be
registered under the name "teapot" if documentation is provided
showing that this form of vessel would have been identified as a
teapot by Western Europeans in period.

Note that we have blazoned the teapots in this submission
explicitly as spouts to sinister. Other vessels in period
or SCA heraldry (such as ewers or tankards) default to having
their handles to sinister and their pouring lip (when present) to
dexter. [Auguste of Ben Dunfirth, 09/2003,
R-Ealdormere]
[(Fieldless) A cross patonce azure] This does not conflict
with Morgana Elisabetta Rosatti, (Fieldless) A cross fleury
azure irradiated Or. Irradiated charges, when drawn
correctly, are a CD from non-irradiated charges. Brooke-Little's
An Heraldic Alphabet, defines irradiated as
"Surrounded by rays of light. An irradiated charge is usually
shown as if it were charged on a sun." The irradiated cross here
is drawn appropriately, with very pronounced irradiation. There
is thus one CD for fieldlessness, and a second CD for the
irradiation. [Brigit Gilbertstoune, 11/2003,
R-Atlantia]
There is substantial (RfS X.2) difference between arrows and
crampons. [Diethelm Waltorfer, 12/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
There is one difference for changing the field but none for
changing a double- to a single-horned anvil. [Daniel de
Blare, 12/2003,
R-West]
[a Thor's hammer inverted vs. a stone hammer] Both the
Thor's hammer inverted and the stone hammer have their heads to
chief and their handles to base, so there is no change in charge
orientation. A stone hammer has a head in the shape of a billet
fesswise. Because the Thor's hammer is not a period heraldic
charge, its difference from other types of charge must be
determined on visual grounds per RfS X.4.e, and there is not
sufficient visual difference between a stone hammer and a Thor's
hammer inverted to give a CD. [Corwyn de Wemyss, 01/2004,
R-An Tir]
[a plow] This is the defining instance of a plow in the
SCA. The plow is taken from a depiction in Neubecker's
Heraldry: Sources, Symbols and Meaning, p. 139, which
illustrates an armorially decorated table of the Tanner's Guild
of Solothurn (dated to 1594). Note that the upright handle
portion of the plow is palewise and to sinister. The remainder of
the plow dips a bit (as is sensible for an item designed to dig
into the earth) so its bottom edge is not quite fesswise but is
slightly bendwise sinister. Presumably the handle is the charge's
reference point, not the digging blades. [Alan the Strong,
03/2004,
A-Æthelmearc]

[a fret surmounted by a badger statant] An
overall charge should lie mostly on the field. Here the badger
lies almost entirely on the fret. This is not stylistically
acceptable by long-standing precedent. [Muirgheal inghean
Raghailligh mhic Seachnasaigh,08/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A comet purpure overall a crescent azure] The
crescent has too high a proportion of overlap with the comet to
be acceptable. This must be returned as per the cover letter with
the November 1992 LoAR, which permitted overall charges in
fieldless badges only if the area of overlap is small and all
charges identifiable. [Shajar al-Yaasmeen, 09/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[a pole-axe gules overall in pale a wolf statant contourny and
a stag trippant] This submission is comprised of a primary
charge of an axe with an overall charge group of a wolf statant
contourny and a stag trippant. This is not technically "slot
machine" heraldry as it does not have a single charge group with
more than two types of charge. However, there seem to be no
period examples of an overall charge group comprised of two
different animals. Since overall charge groups are relatively
rare in period, and most of them are ordinaries, this seems to be
beyond the bounds of period style. [Eric Martel, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[a spiderweb argent overall a rose bendwise sinister
gules] The overall charge does not have the necessary good
contrast with the underlying field, and therefore this must be
returned for reasons of contrast. [Toghan Temur, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
Overall charges may not surmount peripheral charges such as
chiefs. "The orle overlying the point violates the rule
prohibiting overall charges over peripheral charges." (LoAR
October 1999, p. 22). [Miles de Colwell, 12/2001,
R-Lochac]
[Argent, two chevronels gules and overall an eagle displayed
sable] This does not conflict with ... Argent, two
chevronels gules, overall a dragon passant sable, gorged of a
crown embattled, dependent therefrom a chain Or. There is one
CD for changing the type of the overall charge and another for
changing its posture. There is no limit on cumulative differences
for changes to an overall charge group: both RfS X.4.e (type) and
X.4.h (posture) independently apply to "any group placed directly
on the field, including strewn charges or charges overall". While
there is no exact posture comparison that can be made between
dragons and eagles, these charges can both be affronty (such as
displayed), in dexter-facing postures (such as close or passant)
and in sinister facing postures (such as rising to sinister or
rampant to sinister). There is meaningful difference between an
affronty posture and a dexter-facing posture:

[Purpure, a bend sinister between two falcons rising wings
addorsed Or] This is clear of ... Purpure, a bend
sinister between two glaive heads addorsed Or; there is a
CD for the type of secondaries, as well as a CD for
orientation. (This CD is granted because both charges have the
ability to be addorsed, and the falcons are not.) (LoAR 9/00)

[Ivo Blackhawk, 01/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Argent, two chevronels gules and overall an eagle displayed
sable] ... clear of conflict with Manfred, King of Sicily
(important non-SCA arms), Argent, an eagle displayed
sable. This possible conflict was mentioned by some
commenters for a variety of reasons.

Which is the primary charge group in this device? In
current SCA policy, overall charges are not primary charges.
Their addition is considered a CD by RfS X.4.c, based on a period
pattern of adding overall charges to a coat of arms to indicate
cadency. Therefore, this device is clear of Manfred by adding the
(underlying) primary charge group by RfS X.1. Should the two
chevrons be considered equivalent to a chevronelly field? No
evidence was presented, and none could be found, that two
chevronels were an artistic variant of chevronelly in period. The
two designs seem visually distinct as well. Therefore, the
difference in the previous paragraph still applies.
Chevronelly argent and gules, an eagle displayed sable
would have been in conflict with Manfred.

Is this in visual conflict with Manfred? It is true that
this design uses the opposite of the common period method of
using overall charges. This design uses a complicated charge to
surmount simple ordinaries. The usual period method uses a simple
ordinary (often a variant of a bend or bend sinister) to surmount
a base coat using more complicated charges. However, this
departure from expectation does not obscure the visual realities
of this emblazon. The eagle clearly overlies the chevronels,
rather than the other way around. [Ivo Blackhawk, 01/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[a fret gules surmounted by a badger statant sable] The
fret was difficult to identify under the badger, but was
sufficiently identifiable to people at the meeting (including
non-heralds) to permit registration. It should be noted that in
any case where a complex-outlined charge overlies a fret, there
is danger of the fret or the overlying charge becoming
unidentifiable. [Muirgheal inghean Raghailligh mhic
Seachnasaigh, 03/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Per pale Or and gules, a roundel counterchanged] Conflict
with Vincenzo di Palermo, Per pale Or and gules, a sword
bendwise sinister surmounted by a roundel both per pale gules and
Or. Because the sword and the roundel are the same tinctures,
the only way to tell which charge surmounts the other is to look
at the fine internal detail lines. Vincenzo's arms are thus
heraldically equivalent to Per pale Or and gules a roundel
surmounted by a sword both per pale gules and Or. This armory
therefore only has one CD from Vincenzo's for removing the sword,
by RfS X.4.c. [Yehuda ben Maimon, 04/2002,
R-Middle]
[Sable, a stag's massacre surmounted by a sword inverted
argent] Because the tincture of the massacre and the sword on
Morgan's device are the same, neither charge is obviously either
the surmounting, or surmounted, charge. Morgan's device could
equivalently be blazoned as Sable, a sword inverted surmounted
by a stag's massacre argent. [Morgan Owain of
Staghold, 08/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Sable, a bend sinister gules fimbriated Or and overall a
scorpion argent] By previous precedent, "Ermine fimbriation
is disallowed (LoAR of 3 Aug 86, p.17), as are overall charges
surmounting fimbriated ordinaries (9 March 86, p.12)". This
armory uses a fimbriated ordinary surmounted by an overall
charge, and thus is not acceptable. [Sophie Davenport,
02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[(Fieldless) An anchor fouled of its cable argent enfiling a
coronet bendwise sinister Or pearled argent] There is a high
degree of overlap between the coronet and the anchor and its
cable. This is not acceptable style for overall charges on a
fieldless badge for reasons of identifiability and non-period
style. The same stylistic constraints which apply to charges
surmounted by overall charges also apply to charges enfiled by
other charges.

The orientation of the coronet is neither clearly bendwise
sinister nor clearly palewise. This is not blazonable and
therefore a reason for return under RfS VII.7.b. There are also
contrast problems with this emblazon. The argent pearls on the
coronet overlap the argent anchor, giving no contrast at those
points. [William the Mariner, 04/2003,
R-An Tir]
[(Fieldless) An annulet sable overall a dragon segreant
argent] The dragon has a high degree of overlap with the
underlying annulet, which is not acceptable style for fieldless
badges. Moreover, an overall charge should extend significantly
past the outlines of the underlying charge, which is not the case
in this armory. [Alden Drake, 04/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Vert, two arrows inverted in saltire Or surmounted by a tower
argent] Conflict with ... Vert, two swords in saltire Or
surmounted by a stone tower, the top enflamed, proper. Both
pieces of armory are effectively a single group (a sheaf) of
three charges. The only change to the group of three charges is
the change to two-thirds of the type of the charge group (swords
to arrows), which is one CD by RfS X.4.e. As an alternate
interpretation, if we consider the arrows and swords to be
respective primary charge groups, and the overall towers to be
respective overall charge groups, armory using an overall charge
is not eligible for RfS X.2 because it is not simple: "For
purposes of [RfS X.2], simple armory is defined as armory that
has no more than two types of charge directly on the field and
has no overall charges". Thus, there is one CD for changing the
type of primary charges (from arrows to swords) but no further
difference. [Nikolai of Trakai, 06/2003,
R-Middle]
[(Fieldless) On a ribbon fesswise enarched gules the words
"verba volant scripta manet," overall an escallop Or] ... The
ribbon in this submission was originally blazoned as a
scroll. A scroll is not nearly as long and narrow
as a ribbon, and is proportioned more like a billet. Æthelmearc
has previously registered a badge using a scroll: Argent, on
an open scroll gules an "Æ" Or. The scroll in that submission
is drawn correctly and does not resemble this ribbon. Because
this charge is not the same charge as the previously registered
scroll, the grandfather clause does not apply to this
submission.

We note that there would be stylistic difficulties with armory
designed with a scroll... and overall an escallop. Due to
the shapes of these charges, any such design would have a large
amount of overlap between the scroll and the escallop, making the
escallop just "barely overall." By previous precedent, "Barely
overall charges have been ruled unacceptable for a long time and
for fieldless badges overall charges must have very little
overlap with the charge it surmounts" (LoAR of September 1999).
[Æthelmearc, Kingdom of, 08/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Purpure, a chevron couched from dexter interlaced with a
chevron couched from sinister Or and overall three arrows
inverted in fess argent] Some commenters were concerned about
blazoning the arrows as an overall charge group, since only the
center arrow actually surmounts the chevrons. An entire charge
group may be blazoned as overall without requiring that
each one of the charges surmounts the primary charge group. The
three identical arrows in a standard arrangement (in fess)
are clearly a single charge group. [Ásta Þorvaldsdóttir,
07/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A spoon overall four needles conjoined in saltire
points to center argent threaded sable] The group of needles
has lost its identifiability. The points of the needles are
obscured because they surmount a charge with which they have no
contrast. In addition, the needles are drawn with very little
taper, so that these appear to be some sort of batons rather than
needles. This must be returned under RfS VIII.3, which states
"Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by ...
marginal contrast, ...or by being obscured by other elements of
the design."

Some commenters noted that each individual needle only "barely
surmounted" the spoon, as each needle lies mostly on the field
and only extends partially onto the spoon. We do note that, while
each individual needle is only barely surmounting the spoon, the
entire group of four needles conjoined at the points does
acceptably surmount the spoon: the group extends over the spoon
and onto the field in all directions. Such a design is acceptable
as long as identifiability of both the underlying and overlying
charges is preserved, which is not the case in this emblazon.
[Helene Gabrielle du Lac, 08/2003,
R-Middle]
[Argent, a fret and a bordure azure] Conflict with ...
Argent, fretty azure, a triple-towered castle sable within a
bordure azure. ... the castle functions as an overall charge,
as noted in the September 1992 Cover Letter: "The main reason
that Gules fretty Or, overall a lion argent conflicts with
Gules fretty Or lies not in how we consider fretty,
but in how we consider overall charges. So long as overall
charges, by definition, can never be primary charges, such
conflicts will continue to exist." There is thus one CD for
removing the overall castle per RfS X.4.c, but no additional
difference. [Ellen of York, 10/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[two swords inverted in saltire surmounted by a bear's head
cabossed] This emblazon is drawn with a very small overall
bear's head. As a result, there is a very high degree of overlap
between the swords and the bear's head. Because the swords and
the small overall bear's head are the same tincture, the high
degree of overlap causes the small overall charge to be
insufficiently identifiable per RfS VIII.3, which states in
pertinent part, "Identifiable elements may be rendered
unidentifiable by significant reduction in size, marginal
contrast, ... or by being obscured by other elements of the
design."

In general, it is acceptable to have a (round) bear's head
cabossed surmounting (long thin) swords in saltire of the same
tincture, as long as the bear's head is drawn large enough to
maintain its identifiability. [Gerardus Christopherus de
Burgondia, 11/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[on a bend vert four bear pawprints argent and overall a bear
statant sable] We were at a loss on how to blazon this armory
in a way which would clearly re-create the emblazon and would
also be compatible with period armorial style. As blazoned, and
based on our knowlege of overall charges in period armory, we
would expect the four pawprints to be evenly placed on the bend,
and thus, we would expect overall bear to obscure some of the
four pawprints on the bend. However, all four pawprints are
visible. It is not possible to blazon the bend with a larger
number of pawprints, because there is enough of the bend showing
in between the bear's limbs to show that there are no pawprints
under the bear. [Appolonia Notburgen, 03/2004,
R-Calontir]

[Purpure, a chevron between three grape leaves
inverted within an orle Or] It is standard SCA practice for
an ordinary within an orle or double tressure to stop at the
inside of the surrounding charge, as per the reblazon of Rouland
Carre's arms in January 1991:

Rouland Carre. Device. Argent, on a bend cotised azure within
an orle gules, in chief a Latin cross argent.

The LoAR blazoned this as "cotised couped", which would
not have the bend throughout within the orle.

In the real world, both the "throughout" and the
"within and conjoined to" combinations of ordinaries and
orles/double tressures may be found, without a clear default.
David Lindsay of the Mount's 1542 roll of arms gives five
examples of ordinaries combined with double tressures flory
counterflory. There is support for both designs in this book:
with the ordinary throughout, and with the ordinary within and
conjoined to the double tressure flory counterflory. Both designs
are specifically found with chevrons. [Inigo Missaglia,
08/2001,
A-Caid] [Ed.: The emblazon has the chevron terminated at the
orle]
[Argent, a tierce gules] This device is in conflict with
... Argent, a mountain of three peaks issuant from base
gules. The SCA currently considers a mountain to be a variant
of a mount, which is a peripheral ordinary, as per the following
precedents:

Mountains, as variants of mounts, should be emblazoned to
occupy no more than the lower portion of the field. (Barony of
Blackstone Mountain, September, 1993, pg. 10)

[a wolf statant gules atop a mount vert] The wolf appears to be
neither on nor atop the mount; a blazon which more accurately
reproduces the emblazon is Argent, a mount vert, overall a wolf
statant gules. However, we do not register charges that overlap
peripheral ordinaries. [Bastian Wolfhart, 11/99, R-Middle]

A tierce is also a peripheral ordinary. Rule X.2
does not apply between these devices, as neither device has a
primary charge. Therefore, there is only one CD for difference of
type of charge group on the field. We encourage the College to
research whether, under some circumstances, mountains and mounts
may be considered a primary charge in their own right. After all,
unlike a bordure, chief or base, a mount and its variants may be
couped and centrally placed on the field. [Charles le
Grey, 09/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
Overall charges may not surmount peripheral charges such as
chiefs. "The orle overlying the point violates the rule
prohibiting overall charges over peripheral charges." (LoAR
October 1999, p. 22). [Miles de Colwell, 12/2001,
R-Lochac]
There is no period evidence for the artwork blazoned here as a
double tressure wavy braced. The College was unable to
find a blazon which would consistently reproduce this emblazon,
which is a reason for return. The charge also strongly resembles
an orle of chain, which is a reserved charge. Such a resemblance
also is a reason for return.

The double tressure wavy braced is not a parallel situation to a
double tressure dancetty braced, which was ruled to be
acceptable:

There was a strong feeling in the College that the double
tressure dancetty braced was non-period style, and at first
I was inclined to agree. On reflection, however, I found I
couldn't put a name to exactly why I felt so. Visually, this is
not so different from an orle masculy, or saltorels
couped and conjoined in orle, either of which would have
raised far less objection. (LoAR 1/93)

The double tressure dancetty braced was ruled to be
acceptable because it looked very similar to a group of standard
heraldic charges in orle and conjoined: mascles or saltorels
couped. This charge resembles a group of conjoined misshapen
voided ovals with pointed ends, which cannot be alternately
described as a group of conjoined heraldic charges. It also
resembles a simple form of Celtic knotwork, which has considered
non-heraldic style for many years. One can find references to a
"long-standing ban on knotwork" in November 1994, and the
policies on knotwork have not changed since then. [Eithne
Rannach na an tEilan Dubh, 03/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Per pale pean and vert, in sinister a bear rampant all within
an orle Or] Impaled armory using an orle often cuts off the
orle at the line of division, just as impaled armory using a
bordure cuts off the bordure at the line of division. One famous
example is in the arms of Balliol College, Oxford. The College
was founded by Dervorguilla of Galloway, Lady of Balliol. The
arms currently used by the College are the arms which she used to
seal the Statutes of the College in 1282. These arms shown on her
seal are impaled arms, impaling the Galloway arms of Azure, a
lion rampant argent and the Balliol arms of Gules, an orle
argent. This information is from the Oxford University web
site at
http://web.balliol.ox.ac.uk/official/history/crest/index.asp. The
same coat is discussed in J.P. Brooke-Little's An Heraldic
Alphabet under impale.

Therefore, just as the addition of a bordure would not remove the
appearance of impaled armory (c.f. the LoAR of February 1994),
neither does the addition of an orle. The orle, rather than
looking like a charge added overall, merely creates the
appearance of impaling two devices, each with an orle. This
appears to be Pean, an orle Or impaling Vert, a bear
rampant within an orle Or, and as such must be returned per
RfS XI.3.b [Sáerlaith Beirre, 08/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[... a chief vert and for augmentation, on a canton Or a tower
and overall a sword sable] This emblazon does not appear to
depict a correct way of combining a canton with a chief. The
canton as drawn in this emblazon takes up a bit less than the
dexter third of the chief in its horizontal extent and extends
exactly to the bottom of the chief in its vertical extent. This
seems neither the correct way to charge a chief with a canton,
nor the correct way to place a canton so that it surmounts the
entire device.

Parker, in A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, states
that a canton, when combined with a chief, will overlie the
chief. This implies that the canton will extend onto the field.
In this armory, since the canton and the field are of the same
tincture, this might result in problems with our rules for
contrast (RfS VIII.2). Franklyn and Tanner, An Encyclopaedic
Dictionary of Heraldry, p. 59, indicate that a canton can be
charged on a chief but they also state that "A canton on a chief
ought to be slightly smaller than the chief's width in order not
to appear like a chief party per 'side'."

We suggest that, if the submitter resubmits, she include
documentation that the form of augmentation that she plans to use
is found in period armory. Note that if she attempts to resubmit
with the canton lying entirely on the chief, or to otherwise
submit with a charged charge on the chief, she should
specifically address how such a violation of the "layer limit"
(RfS VIII.1.c.ii) would be compatible with period styles of
augmentation. [Rachel Wallace, 09/2002,
R-Atlantia]
Some commenters asked whether it was necessary to blazon the
saltire as "within and conjoined to" the orle. "It is standard
SCA practice for an ordinary within an orle or double tressure to
stop at the inside of the surrounding charge" (LoAR August 2001).
See that LoAR for further details of period practices for orles
combined with ordinaries. [Roesia de Blakehall, 11/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a chevron abased] The chevron abased here is too far to
base to be acceptable without documentation for such a design in
period. Overly enhanced ordinaries have been a reason for return
for many years as non-period style: "These bendlets are enhanced
so much to chief that the style becomes unacceptably modern"
(LoAR January 1992). Overly abased ordinaries suffer from the
same problem.

In the particular case of this chevron, this design could also be
interpreted as a voided point pointed. Points pointed may not be
voided per RfS VIII.3, which states that "Voiding and fimbriation
may only be used with simple geometric charges placed in the
center of the design." [Muirgius mac Con Mara hui S�gdai,
11/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[three points] Previous precedent has held:

Although all three 'points' are mentioned in heraldic tracts,
in practice only the base one appears to have been used; and
even in the tracts, the dexter and sinister points are
described as abatements of honor, to be used separately, and
not in conjunction." (Da'ud ibn Auda, LoAR 4/92, p. 19) No
documentation was presented to contradict this precedent. As a
consequence, the precedent disallowing the use of dexter and/or
sinister points remains in place (LoAR December 1993).

We also have not been provided with documentation to
support this design as period style and thus continue to uphold
the previous precedents. [Shirin al-Adawiya, 12/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Argent, a tierce gules] Conflict with ... Argent, a
quarter gules. RfS X.4.a.i and X.4.a.ii lists the quarter as
a peripheral charge for purposes of those rules. Peripheral
charges may not be considered primary charges, so there is one CD
for changing the type of peripheral charge, but not sufficient
difference under RfS X.2.

Note that the only listing of peripheral charges in the Rules for
Submission is in RfS X.4.a. Previous precedents have used these
definitions in a wider sense than for that specific rule. So,
even though we are here considering the question of what is a
peripheral charge (and therefore not primary) for purposes of RfS
X.2 rather than RfS X.4.a, it seems appropriate to be guided by
the listing of peripheral charges in RfS X.4.a. [Charles the
Grey of Mooneschadowe, 06/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[on a pale ... within a triple tressure] The pale is
within and conjoined to the inside of the triple tressure. This
is the SCA default for an ordinary within an orle or tressure...
[Caroline Marie de Fontenailles, 08/2003,
A-Caid]
[(Fieldless) A double tressure triskely argent] RfS VIII.5
states "Since there is no field in such a [fieldless] design, it
may not use charges that rely on the edges of the field to define
their shape, such as bordures and orles." Because a double
tressure, like both the bordure and the orle, relies on the edges
of the field to define its shape, it may not be used on a
fieldless badge.

The blazon originally used the term tressure, which we
have replaced with the term double tressure, although with
some trepidation because of confusing artwork in the emblazon.
The double tressure in this submission is not drawn with
sufficent space between the two strands of the charge: the two
appear to be stuck together, and thus, this charge is equivalent
to an orle drawn with a line down the middle. If the intent of
this armory is to depict a single strand, the confusing line down
the middle of the strand should be removed, and the charge should
be blazoned as an orle. The term orle should always
be used for the single strand, and multiple strands should be
blazoned as an explicitly enumerated tressure: double
tressure or triple tressure. Take, for example, the
ruling concerning the rather similar charge which was returned in
the LoAR of June 1988:

The original blazon of the surrounding charge was a "tressure
triskele" and it was stated that this was to refer to the
submittor's [sic] services to Trimaris in the heraldic sphere
since there is an award for heralds in that Kingdom called the
Tressure Triskele. It was noted by more than one individual
that we do not use single diminutives and so this has to be an
orle and also that it is not possible to figure out what this
is from the blazon 'triskele' (one person suggested that this
could be an orle semy of triskeles). Neither the name nor any
armoury for the award alluded to has ever been registered by
the College and thus it cannot be considered to be
'grandfathered.'"

The charge in question was eventually registered by
this submitter in October 1991 with the blazon an orle
surmounted by an orle of triskeles argent. However that
blazon could not be used to describe the charge in this
submission. In the 1991 registration, the triskeles surmount the
orle, while in this emblazon, the triskeles are under the
orle/double tressure.

The College had concerns about the identifiability of the
triskeles. Some felt that the identifiability of the triskeles
was objectionably obscured by the overlap with the same-tinctured
double tressure. As a visual note, though it's a matter of
internal details, the orle surmounted by an orle of
triskeles had better identifiability than the charge in this
submission. The College also noted that the double tressure
flory-counterflory (a period charge) did not have the same
intrinsic identifiability difficulty as this double tressure
triskely. Fleurs-de-lys by their nature are easily split into two
identifiable halves, which are then placed on opposite sides of
the double tressure. Triskeles do not easily split into two
identifiable halves. At this time, we decline to rule on the
identifiability issues concerning this submission, as the
required redrawing to clarify the question of whether an orle or
a double tressure is intended will change the artwork
substantially. However, we advise the Trimarian College to be
aware of this issue on their resubmission.

The College also had some questions about whether it was
reasonable to construct a "double tressure triskely." We note
that in the LoAR of July 2001, an orle issuing eight acorns (and
their leaves) from the outer edge was considered to be non-period
style and a reason for return: "The submitter justified the
unusual treatment of the orle by citing examples in Spain of
crosses terminating in acorns plus an example in Germany of a
bend issuing flower. Crosses, however, traditionally have a far
greater number of unusual treatments than any other type of
charge, and the acorns only issue from the ends of the cross, not
from the entire cross. Furthermore, none of the examples cited
included the much more complex example of having acorns plus
leaves issuing from a charge. Barring additional evidence, we
feel that this treatment is not consistent with period style." At
this time, we decline to rule on whether a double tressure
triskely is too far from period style to be registered, or
whether it should be considered a single step from period
practice (also known as a "weirdness"), which can be registered
if there is only one such single step from period style in the
armory, or whether it should be considered compatible with period
armorial style. We might have pended this submission for
consideration of this issue, but could not do so due to the other
reasons for return. We advise the Trimarian College to provide
some documentation in support of this design on resubmission.
[Trimaris, Kingdom of, 09/2003,
R-Trimaris]

CHARGE --
Restricted or Reserved

[Argent, a cat sejant erect
guardant azure between two rose branches in chevron inverted
conjoined in base sable] This submission was listed in the
Letter of Intent as a device and augmentation. However, this is a
simple new device registration. The original blazon referred to a
wreath of roses around this cat, but a wreath of roses is
circular (or nearly so.) The emblazon here shows rose branches,
and we have therefore so blazoned them.

The design of two rose branches in a "V" shape is close to many
SCA depictions of a rose wreath. Thus the only persons who may
use such a design without presumption are those who are entitled
to bear a rose wreath. The submitter is a countess and Lady of
the Rose and is thus entitled to such a wreath. [Judith
Maryse, 10/2001,
A-Trimaris]
There is no period evidence for the artwork blazoned here as a
double tressure wavy braced. The College was unable to
find a blazon which would consistently reproduce this emblazon,
which is a reason for return. The charge also strongly resembles
an orle of chain, which is a reserved charge. Such a resemblance
also is a reason for return. [Eithne Rannach na an tEilan
Dubh, 03/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
Please inform the submitter that the caduceus and rod of
Aesculapius may be registered by the general populace and are no
longer reserved to chirurgeons. [Meredith Stafford, 03/2002,
R-Drachenwald]
[a coronet of trefoils and pearls] The commentary from the
College showed a strong consensus that this form of coronet
visually appeared to use strawberry leaves. By the May 1999
precedent on quadruple mounts, it must therefore be treated as a
ducal coronet, and reserved for the use of dukes and duchesses.
[Ghislaine d'Auxerre, 04/2002,
R-Caid] [Ed.: There was an extensive discussion of this
decision. It can be found under CORONET.]
[six annulets interlaced in annulo] The submitter is a
knight and thus entitled to use a closed loop of chain. These
annulets interlaced in annulo resemble a chain closely enough
that they could only be registered to someone able to register
the reserved charge of a closed loop of chain. [Ibrahim
al-Dimashqi, 03/2003,
A-Artemisia]
[Principal herald's seal. (Tinctureless) On a fess wavy
between in chief two straight trumpets in saltire and triskeles
sans nombre a crown of four points] The Glossary of Terms
allows crowns to be used in "Kingdom/Principality armory;
personal armory of Society Royal peers." The Glossary does not
state that the crown may only be used in some pieces of armory
belonging to the kingdom. While most kingdom armory using crowns
does belong to the sovereign or the consort, various kingdoms
have registered other sorts of armory using crowns, including two
Principal Herald's seals, a flag, and various badges
(undesignated, designated for a kingdom officer, and designated
for an order).

As has been noted before, in real-world armory, the use of a
crown on a coat of arms is not linked to the rank of the holder,
so any policies restricting the use of crowns in SCA heraldry
must be determined from SCA heraldic history and policies. Given
the statement in the Glossary of Terms and the registration
history, it certainly seems acceptable for Principal Herald's
seals to use crowns, since the Principal Herald's seal is
registered to a kingdom. We thus explicitly overrule the
precedent set in the LoAR of September 1986 (although arguably
the wording in the Glossary has already overruled this
precedent), which stated that "[A Kingdom badge registration
designated for use of a guild] The crown is reserved to the arms
of Kingdoms, Principalities and Royal Peers and may not be used,
even with royal permission, by other individuals or groups".

It is clear from the SCA registration history that SCA Principal
Heralds' seals have not generally followed the rules for
fieldless armory. For example, most SCA heralds' seals contain
unconjoined charges, and many contain charges which are defined
by or end at the edge of the field, such as ordinaries throughout
or bordures. SCA herald's seals appear to have the same style
restrictions as tinctured armory, not fieldless armory. Thus the
design of this seal is acceptable, even though it uses a number
of design elements that would not ordinarily be allowed in
fieldless armory. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 03/2003,
A-Trimaris]
[Per pale Or and gules, two dragons combattant
counterchanged] This is clear under RfS X.2 from both ...
Per pale Or and gules, two winged stags combattant
counterchanged and ... Per pale Or and Gules, two
hippogriffs combatant counterchanged. Per the LoAR of July
2001, "There is a substantial difference between a dragon and a
griffin." Dragons are at least as different from winged stags and
hippogriffs as they are from griffins. [Murienne Duquette,
01/2004,
A-East]

It may interest the College to know that examples
of a chief charged with a group of charges of dissimilar tincture
and type are known from the Tudor period in England. Thomas
(Cardinal) Wolsey's arms were Sable on a cross engrailed
argent a lion passant guardant gules between three (lion's) faces
(azure or sable?) on a chief Or a rose gules between two cocks
sable (per p. 80 of Gwynn-Jones and Bedingfield's
Heraldry). Another example of a chief using a tertiary
group with mixed types and tinctures is on p. 96 of the same
book, from Wriothesley's tenure as Garter Principal King of Arms.
Designs where a chief or other ordinary was charged with two
different types of tertiary (an A between two Bs
all in the same tincture) are rather common in Wriothesley's
designs. [Liuete Liana da Luna, 08/2001,
A-Caid]
[Azure, a cross of four mascles argent within and conjoined to
a mascle Or] This armory uses the same type of charge as both
a primary and secondary charge. Some commenters felt that this
was therefore not acceptable per the following precedent:

[returning a mullet of four points throughout ... between four
mullets of four points ...] This is being returned for
violating the long-standing precedent of using two different
sizes of the same charge on the field. (LoAR 3/98 p. 15)

However, in the cited precedent, there was a
reasonable ambiguity as to which mullets were primary charges and
which were secondary charges, as the emblazon could appear to be
an idiosyncratic rendering of five mullets of four points in
saltire. In Francesca's arms, this is not a problem. The
surrounding mascle is clearly in a separate charge group from the
mascles which constitute a cross. Consider the analogous case of,
on a lozenge shaped shield, Azure, a cross of four mascles
argent within and conjoined to an orle Or. The orle would
have a resemblance to a mascle, but there would be no difficulty
in distinguishing the orle from the primary mascle group.
[Francesca la Curiosa, 10/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[Argent goutty de sang, a laurel wreath vert] The device
is clear of conflict with the Barony of Coeur d'Ennui, Argent,
a laurel wreath vert within eight boars' heads couped in annulo
gules. There is one CD for the type of secondary charges and
another for arrangement. This is clearly a group of strewn
charges rather than charges in annulo, as can be seen from the
gouttes in the middle of the laurel wreath. [Campofiamme,
Stronghold of, 10/2001,
A-Drachenwald]
It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge
group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend
cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure
gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises are
one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are,
together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a
third secondary charge group (of the type often termed
peripheral). Changing or removing any one of these charge
groups would be a separate CD. Thus, this hypothetical coat of
arms has two CDs from Argent, a bend cotised between two
mullets and a chief gules. There is one CD for changing the
type of half of the secondary group surrounding the cotised bend
(a mullet and a crescent to two mullets) and a second CD for
changing the type of the peripheral secondary group (bordure to
chief). [Admiranda le Daye, 10/2001,
A-Meridies]
[... on a pale azure a salmon haurient embowed contourny in
chief a compass star argent ...] It is not period style to
have two different tertiary groups on the same underlying charge.
The difference in scale between the salmon and the compass star
makes the compass star appear to be in a subsidiary charge group
to the salmon. There is precedent pertaining to this matter:

[returning A mullet Or charged with a fleur-de-lys florency
between five daggers points outwards sable] None of the
commenters could find a similar motif: a primary charged with a
tertiary X and a group of five tertiary Y's. Barring
documentation of such an arrangement of tertiary charges, we
believe that the motif is not a period one and therefore
unregistrable. [The submission was returned for this reason and
for conflict.] (Esperanza Razzolini d'Asolo, 10/95 p. 15)

[Uma, Shire of, 10/2001,
R-Drachenwald]
[a pole-axe gules overall in pale a wolf statant contourny and
a stag trippant] This submission is comprised of a primary
charge of an axe with an overall charge group of a wolf statant
contourny and a stag trippant. This is not technically "slot
machine" heraldry as it does not have a single charge group with
more than two types of charge. However, there seem to be no
period examples of an overall charge group comprised of two
different animals. Since overall charge groups are relatively
rare in period, and most of them are ordinaries, this seems to be
beyond the bounds of period style. [Eric Martel, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[Per bend sinister azure and purpure semy of mullets argent, a
bend sinister and in canton a mullet argent] Because strewn
charges are not always disposed with geometric precision on the
field, this design is confusingly close to Per bend sinister
azure mullety argent and purpure mullety argent, a bend sinister
argent. As a result of this ambiguity, this submission is
being returned under the prior precedents against using two
different sizes of the same type of charge on the field:

[returning a mullet of four points throughout ... between
four mullets of four points ... ] This is being returned
for violating the long-standing precedent of using two
different sizes of the same charge on the field. (LoAR 3/98 p.
15)

[Catherine Abernathy, 10/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[Gules, in dexter chief a fret couped argent] This also
does not conflict with ... Per saltire gules and pean, a fret
argent. There is one CD for the change to the field and
another for the unforced move of the primary charge to dexter
chief. This also does not conflict with John Thorn, Gules, a
chief embattled argent. The fret here is a primary charge in
a non-central position on the field. John's armory has no primary
charge. Addition of a primary charge is sufficient difference by
X.1. [Ané{zv}ka z Ro{zv}mitála, 11/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
[Per fess sable mullety Or and azure, a dance and in base a
sun Or] The device does not conflict with ... Per fess
gules mullety Or, and vert, a dance and in base a terrestrial
sphere Or. There is one CD for the change to the field. There
is another CD for the change in type of the charge group in base,
which is a different charge group from the semy group in chief.
By current precedent, the semy charges must be in a separate
group from all other charges (LoAR 7/2001, Giraude Benet).
[Wolfgang Dracke, 11/2001,
A-Artemisia]
[Per bend sable bezanty and vert, in base a hare rampant
reguardant Or] This does not conflict with Cornwall, Sable
bezanty (important non-SCA arms). There is one CD for the
changing the field. There is a second CD for adding the rabbit,
because the rabbit is not in the same charge group as the
bezants. By current precedent, the semy charges must be in a
separate group from all other charges (LoAR 7/2001, Giraude
Benet). [Rilint Neufang, 11/2001,
A-West]
[a dragon's head and a donkey's head couped addorsed] If
drawn correctly, a charge group consisting of a dragon's head and
a donkey's head would be acceptable in the SCA without comment.
However, as drawn here, at first they appear to be the same type
of charge, and it then takes some time to distinguish what types
of charge these might be. There are some internal details that
are visible on the black and white mini emblazon which might help
somewhat with the identifiability, but they are entirely lost in
the colored emblazon. This is not identifiable as drawn and must
be returned. [Dubhgall mac Réamoinn, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[A holly branch bendwise sinister inverted vert fructed gules
enfiling a mullet voided Or] The design of a charge enfiling
a voided mullet is a weirdness, but it is not in itself
sufficient reason for return. It is a weirdness because of the
cumulative effects of the unusual voided charge (the voided
mullet), the unusual action of enfiling, and the fact that the
overlap implicit in the act of enfiling reduces the
identifiability of both charges involved. Charges which in their
standard period depiction include a large central hole (such as
laurel wreaths, annulets, and mascles) are not considered a
weirdness when enfiled. Charges with small central holes (such as
spur rowels and rustres), and voided charges where the usual form
of the charge is not voided (mullets) will be considered a
weirdness when enfiled.

The question of which charge in the heraldic ring-toss is
"enfiled" is one of the great heraldic cocktail party discussion
topics. The SCA has a precedent on the topic which is being
followed in this blazon:

[An arrow argent enfiling a serpent involved] The definition of
the term enfile has changed over the years. Boutell (English
Heraldry, 1902) equates it with "pierce": a sword passing
through a crown would enfile the crown. Brooke-Little (An
Heraldic Alphabet 1975) equates it with "encircle": a sword
passing through a crown would be enfiled by the crown. The
confusion is sufficient reason to avoid the use of the term,
but sometimes (as with this submission) it's hard to avoid.
Friar (Dictionary of Heraldry, 1987, p.137) agrees with
Boutell's definition; and that definition does follow more
naturally from the etymology of the word (from French fil,
"thread": beads are threaded on a string, crowns are enfiled on
[by] a sword). That is the definition used here.

[Evelyn atte Holye, 12/2001,
A-Ealdormere]
[Or, on a billet gules a double cross between six roundels Or
and on a chief gules three estoiles of eight rays Or] "It is
not period style to have two different tertiary groups on the
same underlying charge." (LoAR of October 2001, citing the LoAR
of October 1995, p. 15). Here the double cross appears to be a
"primary" tertiary charge, with the roundels functioning as
"secondary" tertiary charges. [Alexandre Afonso de
Almeida, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
[in saltire a rose branch vert flowered in chief azure and a
branch proper] This armory uses two different types of branch
in a single charge group. No evidence has been presented, and
none has been found, for two different types of branch in a
single charge group in period armory. Just as we have previously
disallowed two types of swords, or two types of fish, in the same
charge group because it obscures the identifiability of each
charge and is not period style, this also may not be accepted
without supporting documentation. [Malcolm Aikman,
03/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per chevron purpure fretty Or and Or, in base a bunch of
grapes purpure leaved within a laurel wreath vert] This
device uses three primary charges of three different types in a
single charge group: the grapes, the wreath, and the fretty
(which is equivalent to a fret). This is not allowable style by
RfS VIII.1.a. [Bordescros, Shire of, 03/2002,
R-Lochac]
[(Fieldless) A reremouse displayed sable conjoined in chief to
a compass star pierced Or] The reremouse is not
conjoined to the compass star but overlaps the bottom five
points of the star to a greater or lesser degree. This is in
itself a reason for return because it cannot clearly be recreated
from the blazon. [Argus Caradoc, 03/2002,
R-Meridies]
Remember, enfiling is equivalent to threading (as
in threading a needle). [Randal Avery of the Mease,
04/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[Per fess purpure and sable, a skull and in base an hourglass
fesswise argent] There were some questions about the charge
placement in this armory and the correct blazon for the armory.
The visual interpretation of this emblazon shows that the skull
is indeed a primary charge, the only primary in this design. This
can be seen by the fact that it is mostly centered on the field
and overlies the line of division. The hourglass is clearly
secondary because it is in base beneath a charge which is
clearly primary.

The primary nature of the skull and secondary nature of the
hourglass are apparent from the blazon as well as from the
emblazon. The fact that the hourglass is marked by the blazon as
in base after a charge which is not explicitly positioned
on the field makes it clearly a secondary charge, and the
previously named charge a primary charge.

If the blazon were simply Per fess purpure and sable, a skull
and an hourglass fesswise argent, then the two charges would
be co-primary, with the skull entirely on the top half of the
field and the hourglass entirely on the bottom half of the field.
If the two charges were both explicitly positioned in chief...
and in base..., they would also be co-primary charges and
again be placed with the first named charge entirely on the top
half of the field and the second named charge entirely on the
bottom half of the field. [Soshka Gregor'evich Vilanov,
07/2002,
A-Trimaris]
[Argent, two double-bitted battleaxes and a phoenix azure]
We have reblazoned the device to show that it consists of a group
of equally-sized primary charges arranged two and one. There were
some questions in the commentary about the way in which the
charges were arranged. Because all three charges are longer
vertically than horizontally, it is a reasonable artistic choice
to draw them so that the bottom part of the chiefmost charges is
alongside the top part of the basemost charge. [Simon von
Beckum, 01/2003,
A-East]
[Sable, in fess a roundel between two ravens respectant all
between two bars couped Or] The College generally felt that
this armory appeared to use a single primary charge group
consisting of three types of charges. While the two bars
surrounding the central charges would certainly be considered a
separate secondary group if they were throughout, the fact that
they are couped removes that secondary appearance. [Helgi
hrafnfæðir, 01/2003,
R-Caid]
[in pale a thistle proper issuant from a tower] We have
used the blazon phrase in pale to indicate that the
thistle and tower are co-primary charges. The blazon A thistle
proper issuant from a tower sable implies that the thistle
would be a maintained charge. [Derek of Ildhafn, 01/2003,
A-Caid]
[a sun ... and on a chief Or three compass stars] It is
acceptable for charges on charges to be a close variant of
charges on the field. This sort of design does not run afoul of
the design strictures colloquially known as the "sword and
dagger" problem:

[...on a chevron between three hearts argent three hearts
sable] There is no problem with having the same type of charge
as both secondaries and tertiaries. Submissions are only
returned if the same type of charge is used as primary and
secondary charges. (LoAR September 1999.)

[Geneviève de Saint-Cirq-Lapopie, 02/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[on a chief triangular Or in cross a full drop spindle and a
needle fesswise sable] The small tertiary charges, which
overlap each other and share the same tincture, lose their
identifiability. This is reason for return by RfS VIII.3. We also
advise the submitter that, as a general rule, a full drop spindle
has somewhat less yarn on it and the yarn makes more of a cone
shape. On resubmission, she may wish to resubmit with a more
standard drop spindle in order to enhance the identifiability of
the charge. [Kathleen O'Deay, 03/2003,
R-Middle]
[a bezant conjoined to in pale a sinister wing and a sinister
wing inverted argent all surmounting two lightning bolts crossed
in saltire] This armory consists of a single group of charges
(effectively, a sheaf of charges) consisting of three
separate types of charge: roundel, wings, and lightning bolts.
This is thus overcomplex by RfS VIII.1.a.

The odd arrangement of the wings and the bezant was commented on
by a number of College members. Usually a winged object is winged
with two displayed wings. Here the rotary nature of the wings'
arrangement is unusual, and required a somewhat convoluted blazon
as a result. We advise the submitter to consider designing the
winged roundel in a more conventional fashion on his
resubmission. [Jovinus Meridius, 04/2003,
R-Meridies]
Some members of the College of Arms asked if it was acceptable to
have a the mullet and the sun in the same charge group, or
whether this was a "sword and dagger" problem. A mullet of five
points is a heraldically distinct charge from a sun. The two are
not possible artistic variants of each other (unlike a sword and
a dagger, or a dragon and a wyvern). As a result, there is no
problem having a charge group which incorporates both a sun and a
mullet of five points. [Elinor Larke le Dauncer, 04/2003,
R-Middle]
[On a rose argent barbed vert a cat sejant affronty sable]
This does not conflict with the badge of Martin Luther,
(Fieldless) A rose argent seeded of a heart gules charged with
a Latin cross sable. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There
is a second CD for changing the type and tincture of tertiary
charge (from a black cat to a red heart). There is no additional
difference for removal of the quaternary charge (the black cross
on the red heart), as we do not give difference for addition,
removal, or changes to quaternary charges. [Laurin of
Rosewood, 06/2003,
R-An Tir]
Quoting from the LoAR of June 2001, "A sheaf is considered a
single charge, therefore there is [... a] CD for changing the
type of the secondary charges." Here, we have changed the type
but not the number of secondary charges: we have changed two open
books to an arrow-sheaf and a tulip-sheaf. [Bjorn Krom
Hakenberg, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[on a chief azure in saltire a sword argent and an artist's
brush inverted Or] Some commenters raised concerns about
whether the sword and brush on the chief lost their
identifiability. The concern was due to the fact that tertiary
charges are smaller than primary charges and that, in this
emblazon, the group of tertiary charges is of two types of
charge, rather than the more common group of identical charges.
In this submission, the full-sized emblazon showed no
identifiability problems whatsoever. One cannot make any sort of
general statement concerning the identifiability of a group of
two similar but not identical types of tertiary charges: the
identifiability must be determined on a case by case basis.
[Gwenhwyfar ferch Dafydd, 11/2003,
A-Caid]
[Argent, a scorpion fesswise contourny gules and a chief
double enarched and on a point pointed sable a sheaf of arrows
inverted Or] Combinations of chiefs and bases of any sort are
rare in period. The combination of the non-period chief doubly
enarched and the vanishingly rare charged point pointed leads to
issues of field-ground reversal. It is difficult to determine if
the scorpion is placed on some oddly-shaped central argent charge
on a sable field, or if the armory consists of a red scorpion on
an argent field between an unlikely combination of sable
peripheral charges.

The combination of tinctures and types of charge in this device
add to eight. RfS VIII.1.a states "As a rule of thumb, the total
of the number of tinctures plus the number of types of charges in
a design should not exceed eight [or the armory will be
considered overly complex]." The College felt strongly that in
this armory, the combination of the complexity and the
aforementioned style issues pushed the armory past the limits of
registerable style. [Geoffroi FitzGeorge, 01/2004,
R-An Tir]
[on a bend sinister ... two hearts palewise alternating with
two lozenges palewise] It is not uncommon to find a group of
three charges on a stripe ordinary such as a bend, where the
centermost of the group is of a different type (and sometimes of
a different tincture) than the outer two. This design, using four
charges of two alternating types, appears to be one step from
period practice (also known as "a weirdness") but is not so far
from period practice to require return. [Marie Thérèse
Normand, 02/2004,
A-Atlantia]
[Sable, a chevron cotised argent between three oak leaves
Or] This does not conflict with ... Sable, a chevron
argent cotised between three compass stars elongated to base
Or. There is one CD for changing the tincture of one of the
secondary charge groups (the cotises) and a second CD for
changing the type of the other secondary charge group (from
compass stars to oak leaves.) The cotises are a separate set of
secondary charges by a number of precedents:

It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge
group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend
cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure
gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises
are one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are,
together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a
third secondary charge group (of the type often termed
peripheral). (LoAR of October 2001)

[Argent, on a fess cotised embattled on the outer edges
between three leopard's faces sable three crescents argent]
This is clear of the flag of Meridies, Argent, on a fess
sable, a crown of three points between two mullets argent,
with one CD for the removal of the cotises and a second for the
removal of the leopard's faces as they are two different charge
groups (LoAR of March 2001)

The cotises are clearly a second group of secondary charges so
that an additional point of difference can be obtained from
adding them (LoAR of 27 November 1988, p.12)

... and another CD for the change from a horse's
head to the default double-headed chess knight. As Palimpsest
notes,

... the reason for the conflict of the single-headed chess
knight and a horse's head is visual. The double-headed chess
knight is a period charge (found in Siebmacher in the arms of
Hertzheim) so the visual standard does not apply. Even were it
to apply it would clear the conflict, but the applicable
standard is whether the charges were considered equivalent by
period heralds. There is no reason to believe that this was the
case for double-headed chess knights and horse's heads, so this
submission is clear.

[Joseph Angus Wilson, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
[Sable, a chess rook argent] This is clear of conflict
with ... Sable, a tower argent. There is substantial
difference between a tower and a properly drawn chess rook, so
RfS X.2 applies.

In the LoAR of October 1996, it was stated that there was
"nothing for the difference between a tower and a chess-rook".
This precedent is hereby overturned: a tower and a chess rook
were considered different charges in period and have substantial
visual difference. The period heraldic chess rook is drawn
consistently in a form where the top is forked into two prominent
curled points. This was a standard depiction for the period chess
piece, as illustrated in Caxton's 1474 "Game and Playe of the
Chesse". The period heraldic chess rook does not resemble any
sort of fortification and cannot be mistaken for a tower. On
examining the collated commentary for the October 1996 ruling, it
appears that perhaps the commenters mistakenly believed that the
particular chess rook in the possible conflict was drawn as a
tower, rather than as a period chess rook. [William
fitzBubba, 12/2001,
A-East]
[a chess bishop] This is the defining case of a chess
bishop. It is taken from Publicus' Ars Oratoria from the
15th C, cited from H. J. R. Murray's A History of Chess.
The top of the chess piece resembles the top parts of a
decrescent and an increscent (or the top portion of a mitre) and
issues from a relatively standard chess piece column.
[Godefroy Lévêque, 03/2002,
A-Atlnatia]
[a horse's head contourny erased Or collared gules] This
is clear of conflict with ... Sable, a single headed chess
knight contourny Or. There is a CD for changing the field and
a second CD for adding the collar. "When considering a full beast
or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic
detail, worth no difference. When consider the same creature's
head gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in
proportion --- and treated as a tertiary charge." (LoAR 9/93 p.5)
[Ceinwen ferch Rhys ap Gawain, 03/2002,
A-Caid]

CHEVRON and CHEVRON
INVERTED

[Purpure, a chevron between three grape leaves
inverted within an orle Or] It is standard SCA practice for
an ordinary within an orle or double tressure to stop at the
inside of the surrounding charge, as per the reblazon of Rouland
Carre's arms in January 1991:

Rouland Carre. Device. Argent, on a bend cotised azure within
an orle gules, in chief a Latin cross argent.

The LoAR blazoned this as "cotised couped", which would
not have the bend throughout within the orle.

In the real world, both the "throughout" and the
"within and conjoined to" combinations of ordinaries and
orles/double tressures may be found, without a clear default.
David Lindsay of the Mount's 1542 roll of arms gives five
examples of ordinaries combined with double tressures flory
counterflory. There is support for both designs in this book:
with the ordinary throughout, and with the ordinary within and
conjoined to the double tressure flory counterflory. Both designs
are specifically found with chevrons. [Inigo Missaglia,
08/2001,
A-Caid] [Ed.: the emblazon has the chevron terminated at the
orle]
[Per chevron inverted] Please advise the submitter to draw
the per chevron inverted line deeper, so that it extends farther
to base. This is uncomfortably close to an odd sort of chief.
However, this cannot be mistaken for a chief triangular or any of
the other similar triangular charges or divisions, since it
clearly issues from the side of the field rather than the top
corners or top of the field. [Elspeth of Glendinning,
10/2001,
A-An Tir]
[Chevronelly Or and gules] Conflict with Clare, Earl of
Gloucester, Or three chevrons gules (Important non-SCA
armory). There is no difference between chevronelly and multiple
chevronels. [Ed.: See the11/2001LoAR
for an extended discussion on why there is no difference.]
[Torfin de Carric, 11/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[Per chevron azure and vert, a chevron and in base a cross
clechy argent] Conflict with ... Per chevron enhanced
azure and vert, a chevronel enhanced and in base a hart statant
to sinister at gaze argent. There is one CD for changing the
type of the secondary charge in base. However, there is no other
difference between the enhanced central chevronel and a chevron
in its default central position on the field: this small change
in placement on the field is considered an artistic detail.
[Áine inghean uú Ghríobhtha, 01/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[a chevron embattled vs. a chevron raguly] There is a
second CD for the difference between a chevron raguly (which is
raguly both on the top and the bottom by default) and a chevron
embattled (on the top edge only, by default.) [Mikhail
Dam'ianovich, 02/2002,
A-Caid]
[a fess cotised between two chevronels inverted] The
cotises are too thin to be acceptable. There are also problems
with the placement of the chiefmost chevronel inverted. The
chiefmost chevronel inverted should issue from the sides of the
shield or, at the highest, from the chiefmost corners of the
shield. In this emblazon, the chiefmost chevronel inverted issues
entirely from the chief of the shield. The cumulative problems
with the art require that it be returned for redrawing. (Note
that the placement of the bottommost chevronel inverted is
acceptable. It issues from the functional equivalent of the
"chiefmost corners" of its part of the shield, namely the
intersection between the bottom of the bottommost cotise and the
sides of the shield.)

We suggest that, when redrawing, the submitter make the fess
somewhat thinner, so that the chevronels inverted and the fess
are of roughly equal widths. Drawing the fess thinner will leave
more room for the cotises and chevronels inverted, and will be
more likely to recreate period heraldic style. We note that in
the period examples we have seen of the combination of a fess
between two chevronels, the fess and chevronels are of about
equal width. (See Bedingfeld and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry for
some examples, one from c. 1280 on p. 8 and one on the back cover
from the 15th C). [Ludwig W�rzsteiner, 10/2002,
R-Meridies]
[on a chevron ... the phrase "Non Sibi Sed Todo"] Some
commenters noted that no documentation had been presented for
words on a chevron. Phrases on bordures, including Latin phrases,
are rare but not unknown in Spanish and Italian heraldry. Phrases
in Arabic are not at all uncommon in Islamic heraldry,
particularly on fesses. As a result, putting a Latin phrase on a
chevron seems to be at most one step from period practice, and is
certainly consistent with SCA armorial practices. [Quintin
Wynn, 01/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a chevron enarched within and conjoined at the point to a
chevron] The central conjunction of chevrons was blazoned on
the Letter of Intent as a chevron inarched. A standard SCA
chevron enarched has each arm embowed outwards (curved in
the opposite direction from the arms of a chevron ployé). The SCA
chevron enarched is an artistic variant of a standard
chevron deriving from attempts to show the curvature of a shield.
The combination of chevrons in this submission is found in Legh's
1591 Accedens of Armory, where the combination is blazoned
as a chevron enarched. Parker, in his Glossary of Terms
used in Heraldry, blazons this combination as a chevron
inarched. To avoid confusion with the already established SCA
definition of a chevron enarched we have blazoned this
device using standard SCA blazon terms. If there is any question
about what this conjunction of chevrons looks like, we direct the
reader to Parker's Glossary under chevron inarched.
The book may be found in libraries and there is an on-line
version at
http://www002.upp.so-net.ne.jp/saitou/parker/jpglossc.htm#Chevron.
[Hákon Þorgeirsson, 02/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
There is no difference between a single chevronelle and a
chevron; at this time we would blazon any single central
"chevronelle" as a chevron regardless of how narrowly it was
drawn, to be in keeping with period armorial practices.
[Aclina of Wyvern Heyghts, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
Because chevrons and fesses embattled (with a complex line
of partition on the top of the charge and a plain line on the
bottom) and embattled counter-embattled (with a complex
line of partition on both sides of the charge) are found as
distinct treatments in period heraldry, there is a type CD
between them. [Robert Blackhawk, 04/2003,
A-Outlands]
The chevron inverted issues from the top corners of the shield
and only extends about halfway down the field, so that it lies
almost entirely in the top half of the field. This is not an
acceptable depiction of a chevron inverted. As a general rule,
chevrons inverted issue from the sides of the shield. One might
posit that it could be acceptable for a chevron inverted to issue
from the chief corners of the field, because in some displays of
armory using chevrons in period on a square form of display (a
banner or a square quarter), the chevron issues from the bottom
corners of the field. However, the chevrons in those period
examples still effectively bisect the field. The chevron inverted
in this submission is too high on the field to bisect the field.
This is therefore not an acceptable depiction of a chevron
inverted. [Erika Bjornsdottir, 04/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[issuant from base three chevronels braced gules sable and
azure] The group of chevronels in three different tinctures
is considered a step from period practice (also known as a
"weirdness"):

Questions were raised regarding having ... three roundels in
three different tinctures. While we were unable, in a quick
look, to find an example of the same charge in three different
tinctures, the Dictionary of British Armory, 2 shows the arms
of Milo Fitzwalter of Glouster as Gules, two bends the upper Or
and lower argent., making the use of the same charge in three
different tinctures only one weirdness. (LoAR February 1998)

Because this armory is only one step from period
practice, it may be registered. [Timur al-Badawi, 07/2003,
A-Artemisia]
Armorial designs of the form A chevron... and in base a
[charge] are often drawn with the chevron higher on the field
than normal, to best fill the space: "[Per chevron gules and
vert, a chevron and in base a Latin cross parted and fretted Or]
Though, as a number of commenters noted, the field division and
chevron were drawn higher on the field than normal, in a design
like this the chevron will normally be enhanced. It is not
necessary to blazon the fact" (LoAR of December 1994). Even given
this period tendency, please advise the submitter to draw the
chevron lower on the field: it is drawn quite high on the field
in this emblazon, even for this sort of armorial design. [Otto
von Aken, 01/2004,
A-Outlands]
There is no difference between a plain chevron and a chevron
ployé... [Isabeau Lia Rossedal, 01/2004,
R-Artemisia]
[Argent, three chevronels azure and overall a fleur-de-lys
gules] In this emblazon, the three chevronels are crunched
together in the center of the shield. We would not expect to find
three chevronels so close together in period armory unless the
chevronels were forced close together due to the presence of
secondary charges (as one might find in the hypothetical armory
Argent, three chevronels azure between three fleurs-de-lys
gules). In this emblazon, the three chevronels were drawn so
close together that this armory could almost be reblazoned as
Argent, on a chevron azure two chevronels argent and overall a
fleur-de-lys gules. As a general rule, three chevronels will
be drawn to fill the field, and are in fact considered
interchangeable with the chevronelly field division (see the LoAR
of November 2001 for more details about this).

Period armory does admit the possibility of two small diminutives
of an ordinary that are close together (rather than filling the
shield): a bar gemel (bar "twinned"). The bar gemel
is heraldically distinct from two bars: the bar gemel
consists of two very thin bars drawn close together, while two
bars will fill the space allotted to them. A bar gemel
is, in effect, a voided bar. A good period example of this
practice can be seen in the Herald's Roll circa 1280 on p. 8 of
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry: a coat using two
bars is found in the center coat of the bottom row, whereas
armory using two bars gemel is found on the dexter coat of
the top row, and on the sinister coat of the middle row. No
evidence has been presented, and none has been found for a
"triplet" version of a bar gemel. The "gemel" treatment of other
ordinaries, such as chevronels, bendlets or pallets, is
vanishingly rare in period. Aside from a few examples of bendlets
gemel in the 15th C Italian Stemmario Trivulziano, no
evidence has been presented or found for gemel charges other than
bars. The idea of a triplet version of a chevronel is thus two
steps from period practice ("two weirdnesses") and not
registerable. Thus, it is not reasonable to interpret this
emblazon as using such a hypothetical "triplet chevronel."

Because this emblazon blurs the distinction between three
chevronels and a chevron charged with two chevronels, it may not
be registered per RfS VII.7.a, "Identification Requirement".
[Alessandra da Ferrara, 01/2004,
R-Meridies]

CHIEF

It may interest
the College to know that examples of a chief charged with a group
of charges of dissimilar tincture and type are known from the
Tudor period in England. Thomas (Cardinal) Wolsey's arms were
Sable on a cross engrailed argent a lion passant guardant
gules between three (lion's) faces (azure or sable?) on a chief
Or a rose gules between two cocks sable (per p. 80 of
Gwynn-Jones and Bedingfield's Heraldry). Another example
of a chief using a tertiary group with mixed types and tinctures
is on p. 96 of the same book, from Wriothesley's tenure as Garter
Principal King of Arms. Designs where a chief or other ordinary
was charged with two different types of tertiary (an A
between two Bs all in the same tincture) are rather common
in Wriothesley's designs. [Liuete Liana da Luna, 08/2001,
A-Caid]
Please advise the submitter to draw the chief thicker. The chief
should be roughly one-fifth to one-third the height of the
shield. [Ceara ingen uí Líadnáin, 10/2001,
A-Atlantia]
This is not a pile, because it issues from the top corners of the
shield. Nor is it chaussé, because it does not extend all the way
to base. Nor is it a chief triangular, because it is much too
deep. Nor is it a per chevron inverted field division, because it
does not issue from the sides of the field. As a result, this
must be returned. [Rickard of Gwyntarian, 10/2001,
R-Middle]
Chiefs may not be fimbriated. Voiding and fimbriation may only be
used with simple geometric charges placed in the center of the
design, by RfS VIII.3. [Gerard du Quartier, 11/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[Per chevron azure and vert, a chevron and in base a cross
clechy argent] This also conflicts with ... Per chevron
azure and vert, a chevron and a chief embattled argent. There
is one CD for changing the type of secondary charge to a cross
from a chief. RfS X.4.g only allows difference to be gotten for
changes to charge placement or arrangement if the change "is not
caused by other changes to the design". The placement change here
is caused by the change of type of secondary charge from a chief,
which has a mandatory placement. Therefore, there is not a second
CD for changing the arrangement. [Áine inghean uí
Ghríobhtha, 01/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Argent, ... and a chief barry argent and gules] This was
blazoned on the Letter of Intent with three barrulets
enhanced rather than a chief barry. The College felt
that the proportions of the emblazon would be better preserved
with this blazon. [Ii Saburou Katsumari, 03/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a chief doubly enarched] Please advise the submitter to
draw the chief doubly enarched properly. The center point should
line up with the points where the chief meets the sides of the
shield, as if all three points were on the same horizontal line.
[Etain O'Fouhy, 04/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[a chief invected] The chief is drawn with four
invections, which is an acceptable number. However, the
invections are much too shallow to be acceptable. Good invections
are close to semicircles, about twice as wide as they are deep.
These are so shallow that the line of division is not
identifiable at any distance. [Jacomus Wyndswift, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[a chief enarched and invected] To quote from the LoAR of
June 1997, "While it is true that lines could be enarched and
also embattled, engrailed, et cetera, the enarching was basically
to show the curvature of the shield". Enarched lines are an
exception to the general practice of disallowing the combination
of two different complex lines of partition into one line of
partition, so this enarched and invected chief may be accepted.
[Justinian the Gentle, 05/2002,
A-Outlands]
[Per saltire gules and argent, a serpent nowed and a chief
sable] The sable chief does not have sufficient contrast with
the per saltire gules and argent field, because the sable chief
entirely adjoins a low-contrast gules portion of the field.

The problem [of lack of contrast] is not unique to this field
division: Per bend gules and Or is a neutral field, but Per
bend gules and Or, a chief sable still suffers a lack of
contrast. (LoAR June 1993)

[Þorfinna Grafeldr, 06/2002,
R-Ealdormere]
The emblazon blurs the distinction between a chief and a per fess
line of division. If this is a charged chief, the line marking
the bottom of the chief needs to be higher, and in particular,
the bottom points of the rayonny line should not extend as far
down as the fess point of the shield. The moon should also be
drawn larger as befits a primary charge.

If this is a per fess division, the rayonny line should extend
equally over and under the fess line of the shield. In a per fess
interpetation the equal visual weight of the lozenges and the
moon is appropriate.

As this cannot be accurately blazoned, it must be returned per
RfS VII.7. [Lyutsina Manova, 09/2002,
R-An Tir]
[Argent, three crosses of Cerdaña sable between a chief and a
base azure] This armory is visually equivalent to Azure, a
fess argent charged with three crosses of Cerdaña two and one
sable. It therefore conflicts with a number of pieces of
armory protected by the SCA, including the flag of Honduras
(important non-SCA flag), Azure, on a fess argent five mullets
in saltire azure, and ... Azure, upon a fess argent, a
mole's paw print sable. In each case there is only one CD for
the cumulative changes to the group of charges on the fess.
[Bianca Sereni, 09/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[... a chief vert and for augmentation, on a canton Or a tower
and overall a sword sable] This emblazon does not appear to
depict a correct way of combining a canton with a chief. The
canton as drawn in this emblazon takes up a bit less than the
dexter third of the chief in its horizontal extent and extends
exactly to the bottom of the chief in its vertical extent. This
seems neither the correct way to charge a chief with a canton,
nor the correct way to place a canton so that it surmounts the
entire device.

Parker, in A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, states
that a canton, when combined with a chief, will overlie the
chief. This implies that the canton will extend onto the field.
In this armory, since the canton and the field are of the same
tincture, this might result in problems with our rules for
contrast (RfS VIII.2). Franklyn and Tanner, An Encyclopaedic
Dictionary of Heraldry, p. 59, indicate that a canton can be
charged on a chief but they also state that "A canton on a chief
ought to be slightly smaller than the chief's width in order not
to appear like a chief party per 'side'."

We suggest that, if the submitter resubmits, she include
documentation that the form of augmentation that she plans to use
is found in period armory. Note that if she attempts to resubmit
with the canton lying entirely on the chief, or to otherwise
submit with a charged charge on the chief, she should
specifically address how such a violation of the "layer limit"
(RfS VIII.1.c.ii) would be compatible with period styles of
augmentation. [Rachel Wallace, 09/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[Per bend embattled ... and a chief indented] In addition,
the per bend line is not correctly drawn. The per bend line
should bisect the portion of the field which shows beneath the
chief. The chiefmost point on the per bend line should be where
the bottom of the chief meets the dexter side of the shield.
[Eleanor of Orkney, 09/2002,
R-Lochac]
[Gules ... on a chief Or a demi-sun issuant from the line of
division gules] The demi-sun, where it issues from the line
of division of the chief, extends over half way across the line.
Since the demi-sun is the same tincture as the field, this
obscures the identifiability both of the demi-sun and of the
chief. This must therefore be returned under RfS VIII.3. This is
an extension of a previous precedent which did not allow this
design with the demi-sun throughout on the chief:

A demi-sun throughout on a chief must have good contrast with
the charge upon which it lies (the chief). It will
automatically by definition have poor contrast with the field
which it adjoins (assuming that the field is not neutral). This
will be permissible so long as the demi-sun is not of the same
tincture as the field." (CL November 30 1990 p.1)

[Nimenefeld, Canton of, 11/2002,
R-Atlantia]
The chief indented as drawn here is compatible with period style
per the following precedent: "[A chief indented] The device was
blazoned as having three triangles issuant from chief. This style
of indentation can be found in period (for example Lowell of
Balumbye (Lindsay of the Mount, pl. 107)), but it was blazoned as
either indented or three piles. As current scholarship believes
that such chiefs were originally indented with deep indentations,
we decided to blazon it as indented and leave the depth to
artistic license" (LoAR of July 2000). [Celia the Fair,
09/2003,
A-Lochac]
[Azure, ... a chief vair] The chief in the full-sized
emblazon has two rows of identifiable vair bells, but the bottom
row of vair bells is azure against the azure field. When drawing
a vair chief, the bottom row of vair bells should not be of the
same tincture as the field, for contrast reasons. If the bottom
row of the vair bells is the same tincture as the field, it is
difficult or impossible to tell whether the chief has a plain
line of division or if it has a complex line of division (such as
wavy or urdy, depending on the depiction of the vair). In this
emblazon, an attempt was made to clarify the issue by demarking
the chief with a thick black line, but that does not materially
help the contrast problem, as the thick black line is almost
impossible to see between the blue bottom of the vair bells and
the blue field. The thick line also raises the possibility of
fimbriation: by long-standing SCA precedent, chiefs may not be
fimbriated. [Caitilín ni Killane, 09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[Per saltire sable and vert ... and on a chief Or] Please
advise the submitter to draw the per saltire line issuing from
the intersection of the bottom of the chief and the side of the
field, rather than issuing entirely from the chief. [Fiacc
MacDougal, 10/2003,
A-Ansteorra]

COLLAR

[a
horse's head contourny erased Or collared gules] This is
clear of conflict with ... Sable, a single headed chess knight
contourny Or. There is a CD for changing the field and a
second CD for adding the collar. "When considering a full beast
or monster gorged, the gorging is usually treated as an artistic
detail, worth no difference. When consider the same creature's
head gorged, however, the gorging is much more prominent in
proportion --- and treated as a tertiary charge." (LoAR 9/93 p.5)
[Ceinwen ferch Rhys ap Gawain, 03/2002,
A-Caid]
[stag's head erased gorged of a pearled coronet ...
argent] A beast's head gorged of a coronet or collar is
treated by the SCA as having a tertiary charge. "When
[considering a] creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is
much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary
charge." (LoAR of September 1993). A tertiary charge needs to
have good contrast with the underlying charge. This coronet is
the same tincture as the underlying head, so it violates our
rules for contrast. On a full-sized beast, where a collar is
considered an artist's detail rather than a charge in its own
right, it would be acceptable to have a no-contrast detail of
this nature. [Chrestienne de Waterdene, 04/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
The College was generally in agreement that the addition or
deletion of a crown from the head of a (whole) animal should not
be worth difference. Some period evidence was presented
suggesting that, in armory using a crowned animal, the crown was
at times dropped from the emblazon. Such an easily deletable
artist's distinction should not be considered to be worth
difference.

The College was not able to find period evidence about whether
crowned animal's heads could have the crown added or deleted by
artistic license. Some commenters suggested that perhaps crowns
on animal's heads should be considered analogous to collars on
animal's heads. Current precedent gives a CD for collaring an
animal's head (as if the collar were a tertiary charge) but does
not give a CD for adding a collar to a whole animal. However,
these two designs are not truly analogous. A collar on an
animal's head does indeed function as a tertiary charge and thus
must have good contrast with the head on which it lies. This good
contrast enhances the collar's visual prominence. However, a
crown on an animal's head does not generally have such good
contrast. The crown generally either has poor contrast with the
field or with the animal's head. In addition, a crown may be
further obscured by some artistic details of the head on which it
lies, such as ruffled eagle's feathers or a lion's mane.

Without period evidence to the contrary, and because of the
contrast problems inherent in the design of a crown on an
animal's head, it does not seem appropriate to give difference
for adding a crown to a charge consisting only of an animal's
head. [12/2002,
CL]
[A domestic cat's head caboshed sable issuant from a collar
Or, dependent from the collar a fleur-de-lys azure] When an
animal's head is collared, the neck shows above and beneath the
collar, and the collar is treated as a tertiary charge. In this
armory, the cat's head rests atop a disproportionately wide and
deep collar. The cat's neck is not visible beneath the collar.
This does not appear to be a period way of depicting a collared
animal's head, and the size of the collar raises questions both
about period depiction and about charge groups; it is too large
to be a small maintained charge, but is too small to be
co-primary. Without documentation for this design, it cannot be
accepted.

If the submitter redraws this design with the cat's neck showing
beneath the collar, the collar will count as a tertiary charge.
[Cristal Fleur de la Mer, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
Conflict with Enawynne Olwen, Per bend vert and azure, a sword
proper surmounted by a horse's head couped argent gorged of a
collar Or, chased sable. ... The collar in Enawynne's armory
is sable with Or edges, and is at the very bottom of the horse's
neck, so that the bottom edge of the collar lies directly on the
field (unlike a usual collared head, where the collar lies
entirely on the neck, with neck showing above and below the
collar). In this emblazon, the gorging functions more like
fimbriation of the bottom edge of the horse's neck rather than a
tertiary charge on the neck. It also lacks visual significance.
This oddly placed collar is thus not worth difference for its
addition or removal. [Gareth Marcellus von Köln, 11/2003,
R-Caid]

COMET

Some commenters
felt that heading a comet of a roundel, rather than a mullet or
an estoile, might be an additional problem with this armory.
However, given the different period depictions of comets, a comet
headed of a roundel is a reasonable variant. [Dagun
Karababagai, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[a comet fesswise] The comet was originally blazoned as a
mullet of eight points elongated to sinister. Because the
elongated point is many times longer than the mullet itself, this
charge is not perceived as a mullet with an elongated point.
While this charge is not an acceptable depiction of a mullet with
an elongated point, it is an acceptable depiction of a comet.
Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme's article "Blazoning Comets and
Sparks" (1989 Caidan Heraldic Symposium Proceedings) provides a
number of different period depictions of comets. Each comet
consists of a small, compact head and a long trailing tail, but
the specifics of the different heads and tails are quite
different. One comet from c. 1301 has a round head charged with a
mullet of eight points, and the tail is a long straight point,
much like this charge's tail (except with slight fuzzy details).
Another comet from c. 1493 has a head consisting of a mullet of
eight points. Based on this evidence, this charge is a reasonable
variant of a period comet. [Timur al-Badawi, 07/2003,
A-Artemisia]
[a comet ... headed of a compass star] Period comets are
drawn with a wide variety of head shapes, as noted in Bruce
Draconarius of Mistholme's article "Blazoning Comets and Sparks"
(1989 Caidan Heraldic Symposium Proceedings). The submitting
barony's device has a compass star as its primary charge, so it
seemed appropriate to accede to their request to blazon the shape
of the head of the comet explicitly. [Highland Foorde, Barony
of, 09/2003,
A-Atlantia]

[Argent, a sun
sable charged with a mullet of four points argent] This is in
conflict with ... (Fieldless) On a mullet of seven points
pommetty sable a sperm whale naiant argent. There is a CD for
fieldlessness, but nothing for changing the sun to a multipointed
mullet and nothing for type only of tertiary charge on a sun.
This badge also conflicts with ... Argent, scaly vert, on a
compass star nowed and elongated to base sable, a winged ram
salient argent. There is a CD for adding the field treatment,
but again, nothing for changing the type of primary charge from a
compass star nowy to a sun. A compass star nowy, with its central
disk, is even more like a sun than a standard compass star or
multipointed mullet. Again, there is no difference for change of
type only of tertiary charge on a sun. It also conflicts with ...
Potenty gules and argent, a sun sable eclipsed argent charged
with a mullet throughout sable. Here, there's one CD for the
change of the field, nothing for change of type only of tertiary
charge, and nothing for addition of the quaternary charge.
[Nathaniel Constantine of Saxony, 09/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
... please advise the submitter to resubmit with a more standard
drawing of a sun. Period suns are generally multipointed mullets
(sometimes with some wavy rays) which fit into a circle. In this
case, the "sun" has points elongated to chief, base, dexter, and
sinister. [Nathaniel Constantine of Saxony, 09/2001,
R-Atenveldt] [Ed.: Returned for conflict]
... estoiles are one CD from compass stars. [Letia
Thistelthueyt, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
... there is no difference between a compass star and a riven
star per the LoAR of April 2001. [Iamys of Loch Cairn,
01/2002,
R-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) On a mullet of five greater and five lesser
points Or a griffin passant contourny sable] "There's ...no
difference between suns and multi-pointed mullets --- which
includes compass stars" (LoAR June 1993 p.18). Therefore this
badge has multiple conflicts. In each case, there is one CD for
fieldlessness. In all the cases, there is nothing for change of
type only of tertiary charge on a sun or multipointed mullet, as
this shape is not simple for purposes of RfS X.4.j.ii. [Burke
Kyriell MacDonald, 02/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
[a sun vs. a mullet of sevin points] By current precedent
there is not a CD between a multi-pointed mullet and sun...
[Máire MacPharthláin, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
[(Fieldless) A reremouse displayed sable conjoined in chief to
a compass star pierced Or] The compass star was blazoned on
the Letter of Intent as pierced sable, but the piercing on
the colored emblazon is not black but white. A compass star Or
pierced argent would have inadequate contrast, as the piercing is
equivalent to a tertiary roundel. A compass star pierced Or
(which is to say, a compass star Or with an untinctured hole in
the center, through which the field shows) is not acceptable on a
fieldless badge per the LoAR of January 2000:

Current precedent is that we only allow the piercing of charges
on fieldless badges when those charges were found pierced in
period armory (thus disallowing omni-tinctured tertiary
charges). While a compass star is closely related to a mullet,
it is nevertheless a different charge, one not found in period
armory. Therefore we are not inclined to give it the benefit of
the doubt and allow it to be pierced as we would a mullet or
spur rowel.

[Argus Caradoc, 03/2002,
R-Meridies]
We give no type difference for the change between mullets of
eight points and compass stars. [Rixa Eriksdottir,
05/2002,
R-Meridies]
[Ermine, on a pile gules a demi-sun issuant from base Or]
A demi-sun is a semi-circular charge. If a demi-sun is drawn from
the bottom of a pile, it should subtend an arc of a circle. This
charge subtends an arc of some tall thin oval and is not clearly
recognizable as a demi-sun: it's too elongated. (It's so
difficult to describe an unusual shape in words. The best I can
do here is "an ice cream cone with some small sun rays issuant
from the top of the ice cream scoop".) The rays of the charge are
too short to allow this charge to be reblazoned as rays of the
sun issuant from base (as can be seen in Parker's A
Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry under Ray). Because
this charge cannot be blazoned, it must be returned for
redrawing. It is not clear whether a demi-sun can be correctly
drawn issuant from base on a charge as narrow at the base as a
pile. [Dmitrii Ivanovich Rostovskii, 07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Per pale Or and gules, a sun in splendor counterchanged]
Conflict under RfS X.5, "Visual Test", with Ajax Thermopylokles,
Per pale Or and gules, a Gorgon's head cabossed
counterchanged. The particular stylization of the gorgon's
head in Ajax' armory leads it to be visually very similar to a
sun in splendor. The snakes are evenly arrayed radially about the
gorgon's face, rather than just issuant from the top of the head
as one might expect of a gorgon with snakes for hair. The
gorgon's face is also very stylized, more like a mask than a
face. Thus the face resembles the disk of a sun more than one
might expect of a standard woman's face. Overall the visual
similarity is so overwhelming that we have no choice but to call
conflict under RfS X.5. In ordinary circumstances we would expect
there to be X.2 difference between a variant of a human head and
a sun. [Liudmila Vladimirova doch', 09/2002,
R-Caid]
... no difference between a demi-sun and a demi-compass star.
[Dominica Maquerelle, 09/2002,
R-Meridies]
The suns in this emblazon have faces and thus could be blazoned
as suns in their splendor. However, this term is not
required. The suns were blazoned by the submitter simply as
suns, so we have preserved the desired simpler blazon.
[Signy Halfdanardottir, 10/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[Gules ... on a chief Or a demi-sun issuant from the line of
division gules] The demi-sun, where it issues from the line
of division of the chief, extends over half way across the line.
Since the demi-sun is the same tincture as the field, this
obscures the identifiability both of the demi-sun and of the
chief. This must therefore be returned under RfS VIII.3. This is
an extension of a previous precedent which did not allow this
design with the demi-sun throughout on the chief:

A demi-sun throughout on a chief must have good contrast with
the charge upon which it lies (the chief). It will
automatically by definition have poor contrast with the field
which it adjoins (assuming that the field is not neutral). This
will be permissible so long as the demi-sun is not of the same
tincture as the field." (CL November 30 1990 p.1)

[Nimenefeld, Canton of, 11/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[(Fieldless) A mullet of five greater and five lesser points
within and conjoined to an annulet argent] Conflict with ...
Azure, a compass rose argent. There's one CD for
fieldlessness. Precedent holds that a compass star within an
annulet has no difference from a compass rose: "There is no
difference given between a compass rose and a compass star within
an annulet" (LoAR June 2000). No difference is given between
mullets of six or more points, so this submission's mullet of
five greater and five lesser points within an annulet is
heraldically equivalent to a compass star within an annulet.
[Hans Dörrmast von der Wanderlust, 12/2002,
R-An Tir]
There is one CD for the difference between a sun and a demi-sun,
but there is not substantial difference for purposes of RfS X.2.
In addition, there are a number of other conflicting pieces of
armory consisting solely of a demi-compass star or demi-mullet of
eight or more points on a field. Demi-mullets of many points are
not given type difference from a demi-sun, and the submitter
should be careful to avoid these conflicts on resubmission.
[Atenveldt, Kingdom of, 12/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
... RfS X.4.j.ii does not apply to charges on suns because of the
complex outline of the sun. Thus, there is no difference for
changing the type only of tertiary charge. [Nimenefeld, Canton
of, 01/2003,
R-Atlantia]
There is no difference between a sun and a mullet of eight
points... [Nimenefeld, Canton of, 01/2003,
R-Atlantia]
We also advise the submitter that, while a compass star is
defined as a mullet of four greater and four lesser points, the
lesser points need to be drawn larger, perhaps about half the
length of the primary rays of the mullet. Here they are so small
that they are very hard to see. [Aclina of Wyvern Heyghts,
02/2003,
R-Caid] [Ed.: Returned for conflict.]
[a demi-sun eclipsed issuant from base counterchanged]
While the fact that the demi-sun is eclipsed does hamper its
identifiability, the overall identifiability of the charge
remains acceptable. [Jon the Tall, 04/2003,
A-Meridies]
Some members of the College of Arms asked if it was acceptable to
have a the mullet and the sun in the same charge group, or
whether this was a "sword and dagger" problem. A mullet of five
points is a heraldically distinct charge from a sun. The two are
not possible artistic variants of each other (unlike a sword and
a dagger, or a dragon and a wyvern). As a result, there is no
problem having a charge group which incorporates both a sun and a
mullet of five points. [Elinor Larke le Dauncer, 04/2003,
R-Middle]
[a mullet of four points elongated to base vs. a compass
star] There is no difference between a mullet of four points
and a compass star per the LoAR of January 2001: "As neither a
compass star nor a mullet of four points are period charges, and
they differ only by the addition of the lesser points, there is
not a CD between a mullet of four points and a compass star."
There is also no difference for the slight artistic variant in
elongating the bottom point of a mullet. [Catherine Diana de
Chambéry, 05/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[(Fieldless) A mullet of eight points gyronny purpure and
argent] This does not conflict with ... Ermine, a mullet
of four points gyronny argent and purpure. There is one CD
for fieldlessness. There is a second CD between a mullet of eight
points and a mullet of four points. Note that this is a different
case from the comparison of a compass star with a mullet of four
points. Because of the unusual, and non-period, design of the
compass star, with its four greater and four lesser points, a
compass star conflicts both with a mullet of four points and with
a mullet of eight points. [Alia Marie de Blois, 07/2003,
A-Outlands]
There is no type difference between the compass stars and the
mullets of six points. Because of the unusual (and non-period)
design of compass stars, with their four greater and four lesser
points, they are considered as variants of both mullets of four
points and mullets of eight points. There is no type difference
between mullets of six points and mullets of eight points and,
hence, no difference between mullets of six points and compass
stars. [Brian Sigfridsson von Niedersachsen, 07/2003,R-Atenveldt]
There is no difference between a sun and a mullet of eight points
per the following precedent: "There is ... nothing for the
difference between a sun and a multi-pointed mullet" (LoAR May
1998, p. 28). [Disa blat{o,}nn, 08/2003,
R-Caid]
There have been a number of requests in the commentary to modify
the gender used in referring to (for example) a sun in its
splendor or a moon in her plenitude. We allow suns to be either
masculine or neuter, and we allow moons to be either feminine or
neuter, and we will retain the submitter's blazon when feasible.
[10/2003,
CL]
[mullets vs. compass stars] ... a second CD between the
default mullets of five points and compass stars. RfS X.4.e
states that "A charge not used in period armory will be
considered different in type if its shape in normal depiction is
significantly different." Compass stars are not used in period
armory and thus must be compared with mullets of five points on
visual grounds. They have sufficient visual difference to be
given a CD. [Asad de Barcelona, 10/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
There is no difference for changing only the type of the tertiary
charge on a sun under either the new or old version of RfS
X.4.j.ii, since a sun is not a "suitable" charge under that rule.
[Fionnghuala inghen ui Chonchobhair, 12/2003,
R-Drachenwald]
Both Parker, in A Glossary of Terms used in Heraldry, and
Brooke-Little, in An Heraldic Alphabet, explain that a sun
in his glory is the same thing as a sun in his splendor. This
information is found under the header "sun". [Caerell mac
Domnaill, 02/2004,
A-Ansteorra]

[a pole-axe
gules overall in pale a wolf statant contourny and a stag
trippant] This submission is comprised of a primary charge of
an axe with an overall charge group of a wolf statant contourny
and a stag trippant. This is not technically "slot machine"
heraldry as it does not have a single charge group with more than
two types of charge. However, there seem to be no period examples
of an overall charge group comprised of two different animals.
Since overall charge groups are relatively rare in period, and
most of them are ordinaries, this seems to be beyond the bounds
of period style. [Eric Martel, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
[Per chevron purpure fretty Or and Or, in base a bunch of
grapes purpure leaved within a laurel wreath vert] This
device uses three primary charges of three different types in a
single charge group: the grapes, the wreath, and the fretty
(which is equivalent to a fret). This is not allowable style by
RfS VIII.1.a. [Bordescros, Shire of, 03/2002,
R-Lochac]
[adding coronets to a device] This submission exceeds the
rule of thumb for complexity in RfS VIII.1.a, as the number of
tinctures and the number of types of charge total nine. This rule
of thumb may be exceeded in cases where the armory adheres
strongly to period armorial design, but that is not the case in
this device.

It is important to note that the allowances for overcomplexity
when considering augmentations do not apply to simple device
changes. Device changes incorporating symbols of rank are not
augmentations. Augmentations are a special honor from the crown.
[Sara Charmaine of Falkensee, 01/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[a bezant conjoined to in pale a sinister wing and a sinister
wing inverted argent all surmounting two lightning bolts crossed
in saltire] This armory consists of a single group of charges
(effectively, a sheaf of charges) consisting of three
separate types of charge: roundel, wings, and lightning bolts.
This is thus overcomplex by RfS VIII.1.a.

The odd arrangement of the wings and the bezant was commented on
by a number of College members. Usually a winged object is winged
with two displayed wings. Here the rotary nature of the wings'
arrangement is unusual, and required a somewhat convoluted blazon
as a result. We advise the submitter to consider designing the
winged roundel in a more conventional fashion on his
resubmission. [Jovinus Meridius, 04/2003,
R-Meridies]
[in pale a stag at gaze argent and a bow bendwise sinister,
drawn and with arrow nocked Or] The armory is not overly
complex "slot machine" heraldry (using more than two types of
charge in a single charge group) because prior precedent
indicates that a bow and arrow in a standard position are treated
as if they were a single charge. A drawn bow and arrow are in a
standard position for a bow and arrow.

[considering a strung bow and arrow along with another
charge] The question was raised as to whether or not this is
considered slot machine since it has three dissimilar charges
in one group. While it is true that it has three charges, when
a bow and arrow are in their standard, expected position they
are considered one charge, just like a sword in a scabbard is
considered one charge. It is only when they are separated, or
put into non standard positions for their normal use, such as
being crossed in saltire, that they become two separate
charges. (LoAR April 1999)

[Rotheric Kynith, 06/2003,
A-Caid]
[Per chevron sable and Or, three fleurs-de-lis in chevron Or
and lying atop a single-horned anvil a smith's hammer sable]
RfS VIII.1.a states in part that "Three or more types of charges
should not be used in the same group." (Charge groups using three
or more types of charge are sometimes colloquially known in the
SCA as "slot-machine" heraldry.) Traditionally, maintained
charges are not considered when determining whether armory is too
complex to comply with this portion of RfS VIII.1.a. In this
submission, the smith's hammer is effectively a maintained charge
and thus can be disregarded for purposes of this portion of RfS
VIII.1.a, leaving only two types of charge in the group: the
fleurs-de-lis and the anvil. [Gilbert Valker, 07/2003,
A-Lochac]
[Per pale argent and vert, a thistle and a drawn bow reversed
and nocked with an arrow counterchanged, on a chief gules three
goblets Or] The Letter of Intent noted that this was a
complex device. It cited the precedent stating: "[considering a
strung bow and arrow along with another charge] The
question was raised as to whether or not this is considered slot
machine since it has three dissimilar charges in one group. While
it is true that it has three charges, when a bow and arrow are in
their standard, expected position they are considered one charge,
just like a sword in a scabbard is considered one charge. It is
only when they are separated, or put into non standard positions
for their normal use, such as being crossed in saltire, that they
become two separate charges" (April 1999 LoAR, p. 6).

The cited precedent addresses the part of RfS VIII.1, which
states "three or more types of charges should not be used in the
same group". In this submission, the primary charge group
consists of the thistle and the bow and arrow, and by the cited
precedent, this primary charge group is considered to have two
types of charge for purposes of the "number of types of charge in
one group" portion of RfS VIII.1: a thistle, and a "bow and
arrow" charge.

The cited precedent does not, however, address the portion of RfS
VIII.1, which states "In no case should the number of different
tinctures or types of charges be so great as to eliminate the
visual impact of any single design element. As a rule of thumb,
the total of the number of tinctures plus the number of types of
charges in a design should not exceed eight." The visual
complexity of this armory is extreme: the design is not visually
coherent, the visual impact of the various design elements is
minimized, and in general, the design does not appear to be
period style. The most complex armory generally found in period
was designed in Tudor England, but Tudor armory generally has
significantly more symmetry and coherence than this armory. One
could legitimately argue that the 1999 precedent cited above
about bows and arrows doesn't apply to RfS VIII.1 in general, but
just applies to the issue of multiple types of charge in a single
charge group. However, because the "complexity count" of types +
tinctures is a rule of thumb, rather than a hard and fast rule,
it doesn't strictly matter whether we decide that the number of
tinctures and charges in the design adds to nine (counting the
bow and the arrow separately) or eight (counting the bow and
arrow together as a "bow and arrow") charge. Inspection of this
armory shows that it has "crossed over the line" for allowable
complexity, and must be returned. [Brian McRay, 09/2003,
R-Caid]

CONTRAST

[Checky Or and argent, on a
fess sable ...] The use of Checky Or and argent is
grandfathered to the Kingdom of An Tir. [An Tir, Kingodm
of, 09/2001,
A-An Tir]
[Purpure ... a ford proper] Please advise the submitter to
draw the ford so that an argent stripe is against the purpure
field. This is still identifiable as a ford since it has enough
stripes, so this does not need to be returned for contrast
problems. [Sabine d'Angers, 10/2001,
A-An Tir]
[Argent, an angel argent winged and garbed gules crined and
cuirassed sable] The device blazon appears at first glance to
refer to an argent angel on an argent field. However, given the
tinctures of the hair, wings and garb of the angel, there is no
argent portion of the angel which rests directly on the field.
Thus this has no more of a contrast problem than there is in the
arms Argent, a cross argent fimbriated azure. [Sankt
Vladimir, College of, 10/2001,
A-Atenveldt]
[Gyronny sable and Or, a lozenge within a bordure azure]
The Letter of Intent asked whether an azure charge may be
identifiable on a partially sable gyronny field. RfS VIII.2.a.ii
indicates that this is a legal color combination as long as
identifiability is preserved. This emblazon maintains
identifiability due to the simple outline of the lozenge.
[Brigid of Kincarn, 01/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Per pale azure and argent, in saltire a pickaxe argent hafted
and a sword inverted and in base a rose slipped and leaved all
proper all within a bordure Or] ... the contrast of the sword
may not be acceptable. Some of the argent blade lies on the
no-contrast argent part of the field, and the Or hilt, one of the
more identifiable parts of the sword, also lies on the
poor-contrast argent part of the field. [Óláfr Ljótarson af
Øy, 02/2002,
R-Meridies][Ed.: Returned for complexity]
[Quarterly azure and argent, in pale a raven perched atop a
decrescent sable] This submission has insufficient contrast.
Sable objects technically have good contrast on a quarterly azure
and argent field by RfS VIII.2.a.2: "Good contrast exists between
... ii. An element equally divided of a color and a metal, and
any other element as long as identifiability is maintained." In
this submission, identifiability is not maintained. All the
identifying portions of the close bird are on the low contrast
portion of the field, as are the more identifiable portions of
the decrescent. We were unable to identify either charge
accurately without close viewing of the form. This is therefore
not identifiable due to marginal contrast by RfS VIII.3, Armorial
Identifiability: "Elements must be used in a design so as to
preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements
may be rendered unidentifiable by significant reduction in size,
marginal contrast, excessive counterchanging, voiding, or
fimbriation, or by being obscured by other elements of the
design." [Tristan Ravencrest, 03/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Azure, a heart gules winged argent] Many commenters
raised questions about contrast concerning this device. Some
asked if the charge could be considered to be neutral (an element
equally divided of a color and a metal): it might be so
considered because the wings are visually half the charge. RfS
VIII.2 states "Good contrast exists between: ... ii. An element
equally divided of a color and a metal, and any other element as
long as identifiability is maintained." However, the winged heart
does not have sufficient contrast with the field to maintain
identifiability, because the heart is the primary identifying
element of the charge, and the whole heart has poor contrast with
the field. These cases must be determined on a case by case
basis, and the consensus of the College was that the winged heart
was not sufficiently identifiable due to contrast. [Mariana de
Santiago, 03/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
Bordures may be counterchanged over a gyronny field. We have many
period examples of bordures compony, which are almost the same in
appearance as bordures gyronny. Because the bordure
counterchanged has large enough pieces to maintain its
identifiability, and it looks like a common multiply divided
period bordure, it may be accepted without explicit documentation
of a bordure counterchanged on a gyronny field. [Wulfgar
Neumann, 03/2002,
P-Outlands]
[stag's head erased gorged of a pearled coronet ...
argent] A beast's head gorged of a coronet or collar is
treated by the SCA as having a tertiary charge. "When
[considering a] creature's head gorged, however, the gorging is
much more prominent in proportion --- and treated as a tertiary
charge." (LoAR of September 1993). A tertiary charge needs to
have good contrast with the underlying charge. This coronet is
the same tincture as the underlying head, so it violates our
rules for contrast. On a full-sized beast, where a collar is
considered an artist's detail rather than a charge in its own
right, it would be acceptable to have a no-contrast detail of
this nature. [Chrestienne de Waterdene, 04/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Per fess engrailed azure and vert] The engrailed line of
division is drawn well with five engrailings of a reasonable
depth, and is not obscured by other elements of the armory. The
line is identifiable enough to accept even though azure and vert
have some of the poorest contrast of any two-color combination.
[Helga Iden dohtir, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per pale and per chevron inverted vert and azure] The
field has unacceptable contrast. By RfS VIII.2.b.iii and
VIII.2.b.iv, the only fields which are divided into four parts
and which are acceptable with two low-contrast tinctures are
quarterly and per saltire. [Eoin mac Neill mhic
Lochlainn, 04/2002,
R-East]
[Sable, a Catherine wheel argent charged with a capital letter
A gules] As drawn, the letter A lies almost completely on the
field because of the spaces between the spokes of the wheel. It
therefore needs to have good contrast with the field, and it does
not. [Katherine Linnet Holford, 04/2002,
R-Outlands]
[Azure, a camel rampant Or wearing a hat gules and maintaining
in its mouth a bottle fesswise reversed vert] The hat (which
functions as a maintained charge) and the maintained bottle both
have insufficient contrast with the field. This is acceptable for
maintained charges, which are not worth difference, as long as
the charge in question has some contrast with the field.
[Xenos the Butcher, 06/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[(Fieldless) A crossbow within and conjoined to an oak chaplet
Or] The oak chaplet is surmounted in base by a very small
rose, so small that it does not impact the outline of the charge.
The rose has no contrast with the chaplet and is not identifiable
at other than very close range. It appears to function as a
nonblazonable artistic detail rather than an actual heraldic
charge, and so we have removed it from the blazon. The
alternative was to return it for identifiability problems. On a
fieldless badge, it is not acceptable design to have an an
overall charge that is of the same tincture as, and virtually
completely overlapping, the underlying charge. [West, Kingdom
of the, 06/2002,
A-West]
[Per saltire gules and argent, a serpent nowed and a chief
sable] The sable chief does not have sufficient contrast with
the per saltire gules and argent field, because the sable chief
entirely adjoins a low-contrast gules portion of the field.

The problem [of lack of contrast] is not unique to this field
division: Per bend gules and Or is a neutral field, but Per
bend gules and Or, a chief sable still suffers a lack of
contrast. (LoAR June 1993)

[Þorfinna Grafeldr, 06/2002,
R-Ealdormere]
[Per bend gules and argent, two rapiers in saltire argent and
a caravel proper sailed Or] The ship, like most ships, has
sails which are roughly half the charge. The ship, therefore, is
equally divided of a color (the dark brown wood proper of the
hull) and a metal (the Or of the sails). RfS VIII.2.a.ii provides
that "Good contrast exists between ... an element equally divided
of a color and a metal, and any other element as long as
identifiability is maintained." The ship is acceptably
identifiable, and therefore, has good contrast with its
underlying field. [Damian of Ered Sûl, 07/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Purpure, a wyvern sejant maintaining a sword bendwise and in
chief two thistles argent] The sword is drawn in an
unrecognizable fashion. While the recognizability of maintained
charges is not expected to be as good as the recognizability of
primary or secondary charges, here the identifying hilt of the
sword lies entirely on the wyvern, which is the same tincture.
[William Cormac Britt, 07/2002,
R-Meridies]
[Per fess dovetailed purpure and sable] Some commenters
asked whether a complex line of partition was ever acceptable
between sable and purpure, due to the particularly low contrast
of these tinctures. Complex lines between low contrast tinctures
are rare in period armory. However, a smattering of such designs
does occur, and such examples include a variety of low-contrast
tincture combinations. As a result, as long as the line of
partition remains identifiable and is not obscured by other
elements of the design, complex lines between low-contrast
tinctures may be allowed between any pair of low-contrast
tinctures. The line of partition in this emblazon is not obscured
by the tinctures of the field or by overlying charges, and it
will be acceptable if its placement is changed to clearly show a
per fess division. [Agneszka the Wanderer, 09/2002,
R-Meridies]
[Vair, a squirrel passant gules pierced by an arrow bendwise
sable] The black charge on the vair field, which lines up
with the azure panes of the vair field, is almost invisible and
certainly cannot be identified as an arrow. This must be redrawn
so that the arrow may be identified in order to be acceptable per
RfS VIII.3. As the arrow is currently drawn, it appears to be a
shadow on one diagonal row of the vair bells. [Mark of
Bergental, 10/2002,
R-East]
[natural rainbow proper] The SCA charge of a natural
rainbow proper is tinctured (from chief to base) in red, orange,
yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. The tinctures are
reversed in this emblazon, with the violet on the top and the red
on the bottom. The reversal of the tinctures makes this an
unacceptable variant of the natural rainbow, and is a reason for
return.

The natural rainbow is drawn with argent clouds by default, and
this rainbow is also drawn with argent clouds. The clouds have no
contrast with the argent portion of the field on which the
rainbow lies. This may well be a reason for return. However, in
some cases it is allowable for a charge to have some small
no-contrast details as long as the overall identifiability of the
charge is maintained. At this time, we decline to rule on whether
it is acceptable to have a natural rainbow with its proper argent
clouds on an argent field, as there was no clear College
consensus about whether this should be acceptable. It is
allowable to have a natural rainbow proper clouded in some
specified tincture, and we encourage the submitter to avoid this
question by resubmitting with a rainbow where the clouds have
some contrast with the underlying field. [Phillida Parker,
12/2002,
R-Ealdormere]
[Azure, ... in chief a ducal coronet Or embellished with
strawberry leaves vert]The green strawberry leaves have
insufficient contrast with the underlying azure field. This is
not acceptable per RfS VIII.2. The strawberry leaves are not a
minor artistic detail of the coronet: they are a large part of
what makes the charge identifiable as a coronet of any sort, and
the only thing that allows it to be identifiable as a ducal
coronet. [Chrystofer Kensor, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Per fess wavy vert and azure, a bucket Or] RfS VIII.3
notes that obscuring a complex low-contrast line of partition may
well be grounds for return for unidentifiability. We have such a
case here: the bucket covers most of the line of partition.
[Jorunn Eydisardottir, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Per fess azure and per pale gules and sable] The field
has unacceptable contrast. The pertinent rules for submission
concerning contrast in divided fields or other armorial elements
are:

RfS VIII.2.b.iii: Elements evenly divided into two parts, per
saltire, or quarterly may use any two tinctures or furs.

RfS VIII.2.b.iv: Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of
two different tinctures must have good contrast between their
parts.

RfS VIII.2.b.v: Elements evenly divided in three tinctures must
have good contrast between two of their parts.

While the rules for contrast do not explicitly
discuss fields which are divided unequally into multiple
parts, the overriding principle of the rules for divided fields
is that fields must have good contrast between their parts unless
they are "evenly divided into two parts, per saltire, or
quarterly." Here no portion of the field has good contrast with
any other portion of the field, so the overriding principle of
the rules for contrast are not met. [Grifon fuiz
Guillaume, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Sable, a spear bendwise sinister argent hafted of wood and
enflamed proper] The spear is mostly a wood-brown charge.
This has inadequate contrast with the sable field. The enflaming
does not remove the requirement that the charge should have good
contrast with the field on which it lies. This is thus in
violation of RfS VIII.2.b.i. [Philip Bell, 02/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Per chevron vert and per pale Or and gules, a chevron
dovetailed on the upper edge argent between three compass stars
Or and a fleur-de-lys florency per pale gules and Or] The
original blazon, Per chevron vert and per pale Or and gules, a
chevron dovetailed on the upper edge argent between in fess three
compass stars and a fleur-de-lys florency counterchanged, was
unclear about the tincture of the counterchanged charges on this
field, as there is no well-defined behavior for counterchanging
charges on a field per chevron and per pale. In particular, the
College was unable to ascertain the tincture of the compass
stars. This must therefore be pended for further conflict
research.

There were some questions about the contrast of this field. We
note that the Cover Letter for the LoAR of October 2000 gives
substantial discussion of "medium contrast" fields, defined as
fields "divided so that half was a solid color and half was
evenly divided between color and metal." Such fields are, given
the Cover Letter discussion, clearly acceptable as long as the
charges on them have acceptable contrast (which is the main topic
of discussion in the Cover Letter). By the guidelines in the
Cover Letter for the October 2000 LoAR, in this submission, both
the field and the charges upon it have acceptable contrast.
[Oriana Luisa della Francesca, 02/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Azure, a pale lozengy argent and vert] Please advise the
submitter to draw the pale lozengy so that the parts of the pale
which lie against the azure field are the high-contrast argent
portions rather than the low-contrast vert portions. [Eíbhlïn
inghean Fhearghusa, 04/2003,
A-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) An anchor fouled of its cable argent enfiling a
coronet bendwise sinister Or pearled argent] There are also
contrast problems with this emblazon. The argent pearls on the
coronet overlap the argent anchor, giving no contrast at those
points. [William the Mariner, 04/2003,
R-An Tir]
[Argent, a pile inverted vert issuant from a ford proper]
The ford is drawn with the blue stripe to chief, lying entirely
against the vert pile inverted. This has insufficient contrast,
as the remainder of the ford does not have enough stripes to
clearly identify it as a ford. If the ford were drawn with two
more stripes, or if the pile issued from the center of the ford
(so that the top stripe on the ford laid partially against the
field), there would not be a problem with having the blue stripe
at the top of the ford.

The College had some questions about the way that the bottom of
the ford extends exactly across the bottom of the pile inverted.
As a general rule, we would expect a pile inverted to be somewhat
thinner and thus issue from the center of the ford, rather than
extend all the way across the ford. [Kateryne Segrave,
04/2003,
R-East]
[Per chevron ermine and sable, on a chevron gules fimbriated
... Or] The fimbriation on the top half of the chevron is
effectively invisible, since it is a very thin Or line against an
ermine field. This has inadequate contrast per RfS VIII.2. Note
that so far no evidence has been presented where, in period
armory, the fimbriation failed to have good contrast with both
the charge being fimbriated and the field on which the charge
lies. [Ysolt de la Mere, 05/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[... argent ... a fountain] It is acceptable to place a
fountain on a field or underlying charge that shares one of the
tinctures of the fountain as long as the fountain maintains its
identifiability as a roundel barry wavy argent and azure (or the
other way around.) As drawn in this emblazon, the identifiability
of the fountain is not preserved. Because the top and bottom
portions of the fountain are both argent, this appears almost as
if it were three bars wavy couped on the sail. [Ástríðr in
hárfagra, 07/2003,
R-Lochac]
[Per pale fleury-counterfleury vert and azure] ... there
was some question as to whether the fleury-counterfleury line of
division could ever be registerable between low-contrast
tinctures. The October 1998 LoAR, p. 12, discussed Continental
lines of division that terminate in leaves or similar plant
motifs:

The submitter has provided examples from Siedmacher's [sic]
1605 Wappenbuch of armory that could be blazoned Per
chevron ployé pointed with a linden leaf argent and gules.,
and Per bend Or and sable with trefoils counterposed and
issuant from the center of the line., thereby showing
period evidence for this motif. However, all exemplars provided
used difference tincture classes for each half of the
field.

This design motif is essentially a divided field with leaves as
counterchanged charges. Therefore, this submission violates the
Rule of Tincture. Barring period evidence of this motif using
two tinctures from the same class, it can only be used in the
SCA with tinctures from the different classes.

Fleury-counterfleury is similar in concept to the
lines discussed in this precedent. It could be considered
analogous to "a divided field with leaves [or, in this case,
demi-fleurs-de-lys] as counterchanged charges." If one follows
the logic of this precedent, one could decide that
fleury-counterfleury is not registerable between low-contrast
tinctures unless period documentation is provided for that
design. We decline to rule on this issue at this time; we might
have pended this submission for consideration of this issue,
except that it was necessary to return the submission for the
other reasons mentioned. We suggest that this question be
addressed in any resubmission that uses fleury-counterfleury
between low-contrast tinctures. [Ainbthen inghean Risdeig,
09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[Azure, ... a chief vair] The chief in the full-sized
emblazon has two rows of identifiable vair bells, but the bottom
row of vair bells is azure against the azure field. When drawing
a vair chief, the bottom row of vair bells should not be of the
same tincture as the field, for contrast reasons. If the bottom
row of the vair bells is the same tincture as the field, it is
difficult or impossible to tell whether the chief has a plain
line of division or if it has a complex line of division (such as
wavy or urdy, depending on the depiction of the vair). In this
emblazon, an attempt was made to clarify the issue by demarking
the chief with a thick black line, but that does not materially
help the contrast problem, as the thick black line is almost
impossible to see between the blue bottom of the vair bells and
the blue field. The thick line also raises the possibility of
fimbriation: by long-standing SCA precedent, chiefs may not be
fimbriated. [Caitilín ni Killane, 09/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[Argent, a loon naiant contourny sable] The loon was
originally blazoned as sable marked argent, but it is
predominantly sable on the color emblazon. The depiction of this
loon on the mini-emblazon included details that closely resemble
the markings of the black and white bird that the Americans call
a Common Loon and the British call a Great Northern Diver, but
most of the details that would be white in a naturalistic
depiction of this species were tinctured sable in the color
emblazon. If we blazon this loon as sable marked argent,
it would likely be drawn by an artist as a naturalistic
loon/diver, and would then have too many argent markings against
the argent field to have acceptable contrast. We have thus
blazoned the loon as sable. Per the LoAR of March 2000,
concerning an orca proper (black and white) on an argent field,
"The argent portions of the orca cannot be placed on an argent
field." The same constraints apply to a Common Loon in its
natural colors. [Helga lómr, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
[Vair en pointe, a bend Or and overall riding on a horse
salient gules a nude woman argent crined Or] The woman was
blazoned on the LoI as proper, but she is argent.
There is insufficient contrast between the half-argent complex
field and either an argent complex-outlined charge (as
emblazoned), or a Caucasian proper complex-outlined charge (as
originally blazoned). [Svana mjóbeina, 11/2003,
R-Meridies]
[Per fess nebuly vert and sable] The line of division is
drawn with too many and too small repetitions to be registerable,
particularly on a low contrast field division. RfS VIII.3 states
"Identifiable elements may be rendered unidentifiable by
significant reduction in size, marginal contrast..." It is
acceptable to draw a nebuly line of partition between vert and
sable as long as the identifiability is not lost for other
reasons. [Raffe Ó Donnabháin, 01/2004,
R-An Tir]
[Argent, an arched wooden double door inset into a stone
archway proper] The Pictorial Dictionary states that
"The door... may be inset into an arch or wall." This submission
insets the door into a stone archway proper. Unfortunately the
grey of stone proper (as defined in the SCA Glossary of terms)
classes as a metal, and has insufficient contrast with the
underlying argent field.

Note that the stone surrounding the door is, as drawn in this
submission, an intermediate grey which has insufficient contrast
with either argent or sable. This adds additional problems to the
depiction, in that the stone proper is not drawn as a correct
depiction of stone proper (which would class as a metal) but is
not dark enough to be considered an artistic variant of sable.
[Sudentorre, Canton of, 03/2004,
R-Atlantia]

COPYRIGHT and
TRADEMARK

[three annulets interlaced one and two
Or] A question was raised about possible problems with use of
the Ballantine's Ale insignia. While we did not find the
corporate web site, we did find beer collectors' web sites
showing many beer labels of varying ages, and the Ballantine's
Ale logo uses the annulets two and one, not one and two. Because
this is a simple geometric logo, without any particular nuances
of artwork that make these rings an unmistakable allusion to the
Ballantine's logo, the inversion of the three rings design does
not infringe on the Ballantine's Ale insignia. [Roaring
Wastes, Barony of the, 11/2001,
R-Middle]
[a brown bear's head cabossed proper] RfS VIII.4.b. Modern
Insignia states: Allusions to modern insignia, trademarks, or
common designs may not be registered. This rule does not
refer to a particular artistic style, such as whether the
particular depiction is stylized (such as the Chicago Bulls logo)
or naturalistic (such as the Chicago Bears logo), nor does it
refer to technical conflict. The issue here is unmistakable
allusion to the modern insignia or trademark.

The bear's head here appears to be a photocopy of the Chicago
Bears logo as seen on their web site, but flipped on the vertical
axis, omitting some details, and colored in a different shade of
brown. Because this could reasonably be seen by many viewers as
just the same as the bear's head portion of the Bears
logo, this is too strong an allusion to a modern trademark to be
registered. [Erik the Bear, 11/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[(Fieldless) A penguin statant affronty, head to dexter,
proper] One commenter raised the question of whether there
was some problem due to the Penguin Books logo. That logo would
be blazoned in the same manner as this badge. This is not illegal
style under RfS VIII.4.b, a subsection of the rules on "Obtrusive
Modernity". This rule forbids "Overt illusions to modern
insignia, trademarks or common designs". This penguin is clearly
a different penguin than the one in the Penguin Books logo. The
Penguin Books penguin has a white crescent marking on its face,
much more white on its front, and is all black and white. The
submission under consideration has different proportions, no
crescent marking on its face, and a very prominent red beak and
feet.

As a guideline, there generally will not be an obtrusively modern
"overt" allusion to a logo when the logo uses a single charge,
unless the artwork of the submission matches the artwork of the
logo very closely, or unless the charge is in some way unique.
There might be an "overt" allusion to a logo without the artwork
matching if the charge is unique or if the logo used a very
unusual combination of charges. A girl holding an open parasol
and strewing salt behind her from a canister might seem
obtrusively modern due to the famous Morton Salt logo even if you
dressed the girl in a cotehardie. These cases of obtrusive
modernity must all be determined on a case by case basis.

As for the matter of conflict, the Administrative handbook says
that we protect Copyrighted Images, Trademarks, Military
Insignia, etc. "when covered by applicable laws and regulations
in the country from which the material derives." Penguin Books is
not listed in the US government's trademark database at
http://www.uspto.gov/, so the logo does not appear to be a
trademark. Even if it were a trademark or copyrighted image, we
are unaware of any applicable laws or regulations whereby
registration of a different-looking penguin in the SCA's Armorial
would in any way violate copyright law or infringe on the
business or brand recognition of Penguin Books. [Tylar of
Lochmere, 04/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Checky sable and argent, a bull's head cabossed gules]
Some commenters inquired whether this armory conflicted with the
Chicago Bulls NBA logo, which features a red bull's head
cabossed. There are two possible problems which might arise due
to resemblance to a modern logo or trademark. One is conflict and
the other is obtrusive modernity.

On the matter of conflict, the Administrative Handbook says that
we protect Coyprighted Images, Trademarks, Military Insignia, et
cetera "when covered by applicable laws and regulations in the
country from which the material derives." We are not aware of any
pertinent laws by which registration of this badge would infringe
on the brand recognizability or business of the Chicago Bulls.
Checking the trademark data base at
http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm, the trademarked
versions of the Chicago Bulls insignia all have the text "Chicago
Bulls" written prominently between the horns of the bull. These
words are significant by our rules for difference. Under the SCA
Rules for Submission, there is no conflict between this badge and
the trademark. There is one CD for tincturelessness (of the Bulls
trademark) and another CD for removing the words "Chicago Bulls".
The words also seem to be integral to the trademark, as all the
active registered Chicago Bulls trademarks are of the type "(3)
DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS". This badge omits the
words and thus should not infringe on the trademarks. Moreover,
the stated uses for the Chicago Bulls trademarks concern very
modern goods and services, and do not resemble the uses to which
the SCA puts its armory.

The pertinent rule for possible Obtrusive Modernity due to
resemblance to a real-world trademark is RfS VIII.4.b. This rule
forbids "Overt allusions to modern insignia, trademarks or common
designs". As noted in the LoAR of April 2002, "As a guideline,
there generally will not be an obtrusively modern 'overt'
allusion to a logo when the logo uses a single charge, unless the
artwork of the submission matches the artwork of the logo very
closely, or unless the charge is in some way unique." In this
case, the bull's head in the emblazon does not strongly resemble
the artwork of the bull's head found in the Chicago Bulls logo.
Nor is a bull's head cabossed a unique charge. Therefore, this is
not an obtrusively modern use of a bull's head because of an
overt allusion to the Chicago Bulls logo. [Darius of
Jaxartes, 05/2002,
A-Outlands]
A possible conflict was called with the trademark of Maersk
Shipping, described by the commenter calling the conflict as
Bleu-celeste a mullet of seven points argent. In searching
the U.S. Patent and Trademark database under "Maersk" (at
http://www.uspto.gov/), it is not entirely clear whether the
argent mullet (on some field) is trademarked on its own, or only
when the artwork is in conjunction with the name of the firm. If
the argent seven-pointed mullet on a blue field is indeed
protected on its own (without the name of the firm), there will
be a conflict, with one CD for changing the field, no difference
for the change between a seven- and eight-pointed mullet, and no
difference (as with the Barony of Rivenstar) for moving the
mullet on the field because the change in location is forced.
[Starkhafn, Barony of, 06/2003,
R-Caid] [Ed.: Returned for conflict with Rivenstar]
[Azure, three triangles conjoined, one and two, Or] One
commenter noted that this symbol was frequently found as an item
of insignia in artwork associated with some Nintendo games,
including the Zelda series of games. However, the symbol
is not copyrighted in the USA, and we have received no
information that the symbol is copyrighted elsewhere. As a
result, it need not be protected against conflict. [Paul
O'Flaherty, 07/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[Quarterly azure and argent, a bordure sable semy of escallops
argent] Conflict with a trademark of the BMW corporation,
Quarterly azure and argent, on a bordure sable in chief the
letters B M W argent. There is only one CD for the cumulative
changes to the group of charges on the bordure per RfS X.4.j. The
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shows that the blazon given here
describes all the colored BMW trademarks registered since 1945.
Administrative Handbook, III.B.4. states: "Copyrighted Images,
Trademarks, Military Insignia, etc. - Such items may be protected
when covered by applicable laws and regulations in the country
from which the material derives. Material such as military
insignia may be afforded protection on a case-by-case basis even
where this is not required by law." [Elspeth Forsythe,
11/2003,
R-Meridies]

CORONET and
CROWN

[a ducal coronet] Please advise the submitter
to draw the ducal coronet in the correct fashion, with sets of
strawberry leaves visible at the sides of the coronet as well as
in the center. [Alan Youngforest, 12/2001,
A-Artemisia]
[a coronet of trefoils and pearls] This submission was
pended on the September 2001 LoAR for discussion of whether this
sort of coronet should be reserved for any particular rank in the
SCA. As a general administrative policy decision concerning
reserved charges, the final decision on this matter is Laurel's,
not Wreath's. Wreath does support the decision. The submitter is
a baroness but is not a royal peer.

The idea that a coronet used in armory (as opposed to an external
portion of an achievement) indicates the rank of its owner owes
little or nothing to period practice. Woodward's discussion in
A Treatise on Heraldry British and Foreign pp. 379-380
mentions a number of families using crowns. While some of these
families use crowns in token of some royal association or
appointment, others use the crowns to cant, or have no clear
rationale for using crowns. There is no association between the
type of crown used and the family using the crown. Some of the
non-royal arms Woodward mentions as using crowns can be found in
period sources: the canting Landskron (from Cologne) in the late
14th C Armorial Bellenville, using an imperial coronet,
and Grant (from Scotland), in the 16th C roll of David Lindsay of
the Mount, using a crown of demi-fleurs-de-lys or pointed
trefoils (it is hard to tell in the artwork). Because our SCA
practice of reserved coronets in armory lacks period equivalents,
SCA customs and perceptions have more weight in this decision
than they would in most College of Arms decisions.

Research into coronets of rank from period sources is difficult
because there were no designated heraldic coronets of rank for
most of our period. Pastoureau states that crowns in an
achievement (atop the helmet and at the base of the crest) are
simple decorative elements, not insignia of rank, throughout the
Middle Ages. It is not until the 16th C that coronets begin to be
reserved for certain categories of people (Traité
d'Héraldique, p. 210). Baron Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme
has done further research in armorial manuscripts and period
funerary monuments specifically concerning ducal coronets. His
findings are consistent with Pastoureau's generalization,
although he notes that one can find funerary monuments for dukes
using what has become a ducal coronet in the latter part of the
15th C.

The Glossary of Terms section on reserved charges does not
address this issue well: it is somewhat behind the times (oops)
and states that a crown/coronet is reserved to
"Kingdom/Principality armory; personal armory of Society royal
peers". Use of coronets was extended in the LoAR of May 1999,
where Laurel stated that a "court baron/ess may use a coronet in
their arms, so long as it does not use the embattlements of
county rank, or the strawberry leaves of ducal rank". This
coronet clearly does not use the embattlements of county rank.
The question therefore is whether it uses the strawberry leaves
of ducal rank.

Neither precedent nor the Armorial and Ordinary are completely
clear about the reserved regalia for dukes and duchesses. Is the
regalia a coronet using exclusively strawberry leaves or a
coronet using any strawberry leaves? The regalia registered in
the Armorial and Ordinary for dukes and duchesses is,
(Tinctureless) A coronet with strawberry leaves. The
strict interpretation of both the May 1999 ruling on coronets for
barons and the regalia registration, and the consensus of the
College of Arms, is that any strawberry leaves on a coronet will
indicate ducal rank in SCA armory. There is some period support
for this interpretation as well. The 16th C roll of David Lindsay
of the Mount gives different types of coronets in the
achievements of royalty, dukes and earls, and the ducal coronets
alternate strawberry leaves with pearls on points.

This leaves the question of whether the trefoils on the coronet
in this submission should be considered equivalent to strawberry
leaves. Strawberry leaves found on ducal coronets in period did
not always resemble the natural, serrated-edged, strawberry leaf.
They were drawn in a variety of trefoil-like shapes, including a
trefoil with smooth-edged pointed foils.

The trefoils in this submission are not exactly the same as any
of those in the documented period ducal coronets. These trefoils
have smooth-edged round foils without points, like the club card
suit. Evidence was presented indicating that coronets with
similar round-foil trefoils were used in artwork as "generic"
crowns for during the time immediately predating the
establishment of coronets of rank. One can find 14th and early
15th C illuminations showing sovereigns, dukes, princes and
unspecified legendary nobility all wearing crowns with
round-foiled trefoils at the end of some of the points. It is not
clear whether such crowns continued to be "generic" in artwork of
our period after the idea of coronets of rank became
established.

However, when considering crowns, it is difficult to draw strong
conclusions about heraldic practices from period non-heraldic
artwork. Period practices for artwork, apparel and heraldry do
not parallel each other closely. In artwork, crowns are generally
used to illustrate high-ranking people and are mostly used to
illustrate royalty. In period clothing, crowns and coronets were
also worn by the lesser nobility and by wealthy commoners,
although sumptuary laws were then passed to keep the commoners
from wearing coronets (Lightbown, Medieval European
Jewellery, chapter 13). In heraldry, as noted above, crowns
could be found in the arms of a wide range of people, and types
of crown were not distinct in achievements until the 16th C.

Regardless of whether or not there was some distinction drawn in
the 16th C between ducal coronets with pointed-foil trefoils and
the previously "generic" coronet with round-foil trefoils, this
change is not visually sufficient to avoid the appearance of
ducal status in the SCA. We have precedent indicating that such
presumption is determined based on visual similarity to the
reserved charge:

The quadruple mount overwhelmingly resembles a crown, and the
submitter is not entitled to display one on her arms. (Laurel
had been inclined to allow the charge, but at the Laurel
meeting where it was viewed, my staff, who had not seen the
LoI, immediately started looking for evidence of her
entitlement to use a crown, since they all thought it was one
until the blazon was read. This served to change our mind.).
The submitter is correct in stating that it is a period charge.
However, that is not relevant in matters of presumption. (LoAR
5/99)

The commentary from the College showed a strong
consensus that this form of coronet visually appeared to use
strawberry leaves. By the May 1999 precedent on quadruple mounts,
it must therefore be treated as a ducal coronet, and reserved for
the use of dukes and duchesses. As the submitter does not hold
this rank, she may not register this form of coronet.
[Ghislaine d'Auxerre, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per pale gules and vert, three cat's heads cabossed Or]
Conflict with Dalmatia, Azure, three lions' heads cabossed
crowned Or. When a crown is added to the top of an animal's
head, the change is not as visually significant as when one
gorges the head with a high-contrast crown (which has been
considered addition of a tertiary charge, and worth a CD, since
the LoAR of September 1993). A crown on an animal's head
generally either has poor contrast with the field, which makes it
hard to see, or it has poor contrast with the head, making it
appear to be part of the head. In the particular case of crowned
lion's heads, a lion's head is often drawn with a jagged outline
at the top of the head due to the lion's mane. When the crown on
a lion's head is the same tincture as the lion's head, the crown
will be very difficult to distinguish visually. There is
therefore one CD for changing the field but nothing for removing
the near-invisible crowns. [Ástrídr Brandsdóttir, 06/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
The College was generally in agreement that the addition or
deletion of a crown from the head of a (whole) animal should not
be worth difference. Some period evidence was presented
suggesting that, in armory using a crowned animal, the crown was
at times dropped from the emblazon. Such an easily deletable
artist's distinction should not be considered to be worth
difference.

The College was not able to find period evidence about whether
crowned animal's heads could have the crown added or deleted by
artistic license. Some commenters suggested that perhaps crowns
on animal's heads should be considered analogous to collars on
animal's heads. Current precedent gives a CD for collaring an
animal's head (as if the collar were a tertiary charge) but does
not give a CD for adding a collar to a whole animal. However,
these two designs are not truly analogous. A collar on an
animal's head does indeed function as a tertiary charge and thus
must have good contrast with the head on which it lies. This good
contrast enhances the collar's visual prominence. However, a
crown on an animal's head does not generally have such good
contrast. The crown generally either has poor contrast with the
field or with the animal's head. In addition, a crown may be
further obscured by some artistic details of the head on which it
lies, such as ruffled eagle's feathers or a lion's mane.

Without period evidence to the contrary, and because of the
contrast problems inherent in the design of a crown on an
animal's head, it does not seem appropriate to give difference
for adding a crown to a charge consisting only of an animal's
head. [12/2002,
CL]
[Azure, ... in chief a ducal coronet Or embellished with
strawberry leaves vert]The green strawberry leaves have
insufficient contrast with the underlying azure field. This is
not acceptable per RfS VIII.2. The strawberry leaves are not a
minor artistic detail of the coronet: they are a large part of
what makes the charge identifiable as a coronet of any sort, and
the only thing that allows it to be identifiable as a ducal
coronet. [Chrystofer Kensor, 01/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Principal herald's seal. (Tinctureless) On a fess wavy
between in chief two straight trumpets in saltire and triskeles
sans nombre a crown of four points] The Glossary of Terms
allows crowns to be used in "Kingdom/Principality armory;
personal armory of Society Royal peers." The Glossary does not
state that the crown may only be used in some pieces of armory
belonging to the kingdom. While most kingdom armory using crowns
does belong to the sovereign or the consort, various kingdoms
have registered other sorts of armory using crowns, including two
Principal Herald's seals, a flag, and various badges
(undesignated, designated for a kingdom officer, and designated
for an order).

As has been noted before, in real-world armory, the use of a
crown on a coat of arms is not linked to the rank of the holder,
so any policies restricting the use of crowns in SCA heraldry
must be determined from SCA heraldic history and policies. Given
the statement in the Glossary of Terms and the registration
history, it certainly seems acceptable for Principal Herald's
seals to use crowns, since the Principal Herald's seal is
registered to a kingdom. We thus explicitly overrule the
precedent set in the LoAR of September 1986 (although arguably
the wording in the Glossary has already overruled this
precedent), which stated that "[A Kingdom badge registration
designated for use of a guild] The crown is reserved to the arms
of Kingdoms, Principalities and Royal Peers and may not be used,
even with royal permission, by other individuals or groups".

It is clear from the SCA registration history that SCA Principal
Heralds' seals have not generally followed the rules for
fieldless armory. For example, most SCA heralds' seals contain
unconjoined charges, and many contain charges which are defined
by or end at the edge of the field, such as ordinaries throughout
or bordures. SCA herald's seals appear to have the same style
restrictions as tinctured armory, not fieldless armory. Thus the
design of this seal is acceptable, even though it uses a number
of design elements that would not ordinarily be allowed in
fieldless armory. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 03/2003,
A-Trimaris]
Questions were raised about the inclusion of a crown in this
armory. Kingdom armory of any sort may use a crown, as indicated
in the reserved charges portion of the Glossary of Terms. Many
kingdoms have registered secondary armory, such as badges, which
include a crown or coronet. Having such a crown or coronet in the
consort's arms, when one can be sure that the reigning consort is
entitled to bear a crown, seems perfectly reasonable.
[Atlantia, Kingdom of, 04/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a bull's head cabossed gules, maintaining from the dexter
horn a coronet sable] Clarion summarized the issues with the
device submission rather well: "I have not seen any period
examples of a crown being placed on an animal head this way, and
given its unbalanced appearance am not willing to support it
without such documentation. Administratively, we do not allow
alternates to be considered in submissions, although the primary
reason for that restriction (to avoid having to do multiple
conflict checks) does not apply in this case."

The stylistic issue with the crown is sufficient reason for
return. It is not clearly period style. The crown hanging at an
odd angle from the horn is not blazonable (and thus, is not
registerable under RfS VII.7.b). [Darius Tigres
Jaxarticus, 02/2004,
R-Outlands]

COTISES

[Per
bend sinister purpure and vert, a bend sinister between a
butterfly and three bells one and two Or] This is clear of
conflict with Yusuf Ja'baral-Timbuktuwwi, Per bend sinister
purpure and vert, a bend sinister cotised between an elephant's
head couped close and a decrescent with a mullet suspended
between its horns Or. The cotises, in Yusuf's device, form a
distinct charge group apart from the group consisting of the
elephant's head and decrescent/mullet. "While cotises and other
charges on the field would be considered separate charge groups
on the same armory, they are still secondary charges and can be
compared to other secondary charges. (LoAR 6/98 p. 17)." In other
words, Yusuf's device has two secondary charge groups: the
cotises, and the other charges around the bend. Comparing Yusuf's
device with this submission, there are three CDs: one for the
removal of the cotise group and two for changing the type and
number of the other secondary group.

It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge
group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend
cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure
gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises are
one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are,
together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a
third secondary charge group (of the type often termed
peripheral). Changing or removing any one of these charge
groups would be a separate CD. Thus, this hypothetical coat of
arms has two CDs from Argent, a bend cotised between two
mullets and a chief gules. There is one CD for changing the
type of half of the secondary group surrounding the cotised bend
(a mullet and a crescent to two mullets) and a second CD for
changing the type of the peripheral secondary group (bordure to
chief). [Admiranda le Daye, 10/2001,
A-Meridies]
[a bend abased and cotised argent] No documentation was
presented for ordinaries which are both abased and cotised.
Abased ordinaries are so rare in period armory that this
treatment appears to be too far a departure from period heraldic
style to be acceptable without documentation. [Arabella
Mackinnon, 06/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[a fess cotised fleury on the outer edge] The submitter
documented a piece of armory from 1493, illustrated on p. 188 of
Neubecker's Heraldry: Sources, Symbols, and Meaning, which
shows a bend cotised on the outer edges with plain points
alternating with bottony points. Some members of the College
asked whether this single documented example of cotises with a
treatment on only the outer edge was sufficient documentation for
this design, which used a different complex treatment on the
outer edges of its cotises. We were able to find other
documentation for such a design in period. The Dictionary of
British Arms, vol. 2 (a book containing only period armory),
cites the arms of Kelke, Sable a bend cotised fleury on the
outer edge argent, and Bromflete, Sable a bend cotised
fleury on the outer edge Or, which documents the specific
sort of cotising found in this device.

In addition, we note that the SCA has for some time accepted
cotises that have complex lines on the outer edges. Cotises that
have a complex line on the outer edge (away from the ordinary
being cotised) and a plain line on the inner edge (near the
ordinary being cotised) are SCA-compatible for all the standard
complex lines of partition, and all the standard cotised
ordinaries. [Margaret Hepburn of Ardrossan, 08/2003,
A-Outlands]
[Sable, a chevron cotised argent between three oak leaves
Or] This does not conflict with ... Sable, a chevron
argent cotised between three compass stars elongated to base
Or. There is one CD for changing the tincture of one of the
secondary charge groups (the cotises) and a second CD for
changing the type of the other secondary charge group (from
compass stars to oak leaves.) The cotises are a separate set of
secondary charges by a number of precedents:

It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge
group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend
cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure
gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises
are one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are,
together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a
third secondary charge group (of the type often termed
peripheral). (LoAR of October 2001)

[Argent, on a fess cotised embattled on the outer edges
between three leopard's faces sable three crescents argent]
This is clear of the flag of Meridies, Argent, on a fess
sable, a crown of three points between two mullets argent,
with one CD for the removal of the cotises and a second for the
removal of the leopard's faces as they are two different charge
groups (LoAR of March 2001)

The cotises are clearly a second group of secondary charges so
that an additional point of difference can be obtained from
adding them (LoAR of 27 November 1988, p.12)

[Bendy sinister
vert and Or, a hawk striking contourny argent a bordure
counterchanged] The commentary from the College of Arms
overwhelmingly indicated that the combination of bendy sinister
and bordure is excessive counterchanging. In general, we would
like to see documentation for any charge counterchanged over a
multiply divided field, such as barry or gyronny. [Tvorimir
Danilov, 08/2001,
R-An Tir]
[Or, a bend sinister sable, overall on a delf ployé
counterchanged] Current precedent indicates:

The only time we permit a charge to be counterchanged over
another is when they are both ordinaries. (Shire of Crystal
Crags, 12/98 p. 13)

While a delf is simple, it is not an ordinary.
Moreover, a delf ploye is not a simple delf. As far as we can
tell it is only used as a period charge in Mameluk heraldry, and
is thus somewhat of a weirdness in general Western style. The
cumulative problems with the style of this submission are
sufficient to require its return. [Tarvin, Shire of,
08/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[Quarterly sable and argent, on a cross throughout between
four unicorns rampant five mullets of eight points all
counterchanged] This is excessively counterchanged. The
identifiability of the small mullets is hampered by the
counterchanging on this emblazon. The cumulative effect of the
counterchanging of the primary, secondary, and tertiary groups,
on a field divided of more than two parts, is overwhelming.
[Sándor Dósa, 08/2001,
R-Meridies]
[Gyronny vert and Or, a saltire counterchanged] The
combination of the gyronny field and the saltire is very visually
confusing. Each arm of the saltire is counterchanged along its
long axis, which generally hampers identifiability. Because each
piece of the counterchanged saltire is similar in size to the
pieces of the gyronny field which show between the arms of the
saltire, it is difficult to distinguish which parts of the
emblazon belong to the charge, and which belong to the field.
This design also does not appear to be period style. Absent
documentation for the design of a cross or saltire, as an
ordinary, counterchanged on a gyronny field in period, this must
be returned. [Wilhelm von Düsseldorf, 01/2002,
R-West]
[Per fess azure and argent, a compass star throughout and a
bordure counterchanged] This is clear of conflict with ...
Per bend sinister azure and argent a compass star within a
bordure counterchanged. There is one CD for changing the
field tincture, another CD for changing the tincture of the
primary charge (the compass star), and a third CD for changing
the tincture of the bordure. There is nothing in the Rules for
Submission which calls for considering conflict with a rotated
version of the entire armory. Nor is there visual confusion
between these two armories when they are displayed in their
correct orientations. [Garrett O'Doherty, 02/2002,
A-Caid]
[Quarterly azure and argent, five crosses crosslet in saltire
counterchanged] Please advise the submitter to draw the arms
of the crosses somewhat thicker, to help with the identifiablity
of the center cross. Because this armory clearly uses a group of
identical charges, and four of the five are very identifiable,
the problems with the identifiability of the center charge due to
the counterchanging is not sufficient to warrant return.
[Daniel of the Outlands, 02/2002,
A-Outlands]
[Paly sable and argent, a unicorn rampant counterchanged]
This is excessively counterchanged and non-period style. The
unicorn is not identifiable when counterchanged over this
multiply divided field. No documentation has been presented, nor
could any be found, for the counterchanging of a complex-outlined
charge over a multiply divided field. [Cynwrig Chwith,
02/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[Per bend sinister argent and azure, two cinquefoils
counterchanged] This is clear of conflict with Gerelt of
Lockeford, Per bend argent and azure, in bend two roses
counterchanged. There is one CD for the change to the field.
There is also a CD for changing the tincture of the roses. Each
rose in Gerelt's arms is half azure and half argent. Each of
these roses is a solid tincture. Therefore, half the tincture of
each rose has changed. [Katrein Adler, 02/2002,
R-Outlands]
[Per pale and per saltire gules and argent, on a roundel
counterchanged a spider inverted and a bordure sable] No
evidence was presented, and none was found, for counterchanging a
central roundel over this field, or the similar gyronny field, in
period armory. Such a design will not be acceptable without
documentation: "In general, we would like to see documentation
for any charge counterchanged over a multiply divided field, such
as barry or gyronny" (LoAR 8/2001). [Sabina le Sewester,
03/2002,
R-West]
[Per bend argent and sable, a hound rampant and a hound
rampant contourny counterchanged] This does not conflict with
Matthew de Wolfe, Per bend sinister embattled argent and
sable, in bend two wolves rampant combattant counterchanged.
To understand why there is no conflict, it is helpful to remove
all blazon shortcuts and blazon each of these pieces of armory
explicitly. Note that there are two important common blazon
shortcuts which are found in both Matheus' and Matthew's current
blazons. The first blazon shortcut is that two charges on a
divided field are placed on opposite sides of a line of division
by default. The other blazon shortcut is the use of the word
counterchanged rather than using the tinctures
argent and sable.

Thus, when we remove blazon shortcuts, Matheus' arms may be
blazoned Per bend argent and sable, in sinister chief a hound
rampant sable and in dexter base a hound rampant to sinister
argent. Matthew's arms may be blazoned Per bend sinister
embattled argent and sable, in dexter chief a wolf rampant to
sinister sable and in sinister base a wolf rampant
argent.

Precedent has consistently held that "you cannot 'blazon your way
out of' a conflict" (stated succinctly in this quote from the
LoAR of February 2000, which upheld years of previous precedent).
Thus, we must compare these two pieces of armory using the
"explicit" blazons. There is one CD for changing the field. There
is no difference for changing the type of canine from wolf to
hound.

The charges may not lie on a portion of the field with which they
have no contrast. Matheus' charges could not be arranged like
Matthew's (with the sable charge in dexter chief and the
argent charge in sinister base) on a per bend argent
and sable field, because each charge would have no contrast
with half of the field on which it lies. The charges must change
their arrangement. Because this change in arrangement is "caused
by other changes to the design" (namely, the changes to the
field) it is not worth difference per RfS X.4.g for arrangement
changes. (This is often known as a "forced" arrangement change or
"forced" position change.)

The second CD comes from the change of posture. Each canine is
facing in the opposite direction from the corresponding canine in
the other coat. This posture change is a CD by RfS X.4.h.

By this analysis we are expressly overturning the precedent set
in January 1994 that stated in pertinent part:

[Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two
<charges> counterchanged vs. Huffam, Per bend sable and
argent, two <charges> counterchanged ] Because the
charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed
anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a
consequence, the change in position of the <charges>
cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division
(though in Huffam they are in the expected position, one on
either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for
position on the field

By this precedent, the use of the word
counterchanged would remove a conflict which would apply
if the tinctures of the charges were explicitly sable and
argent, which is contrary to long-standing SCA policy.
[Matheus of Coppertree, 02/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Per chevron vert and per pale Or and gules, a chevron
dovetailed on the upper edge argent between three compass stars
Or and a fleur-de-lys florency per pale gules and Or] The
original blazon, Per chevron vert and per pale Or and gules, a
chevron dovetailed on the upper edge argent between in fess three
compass stars and a fleur-de-lys florency counterchanged, was
unclear about the tincture of the counterchanged charges on this
field, as there is no well-defined behavior for counterchanging
charges on a field per chevron and per pale. In particular, the
College was unable to ascertain the tincture of the compass
stars. This must therefore be pended for further conflict
research.

There were some questions about the contrast of this field. We
note that the Cover Letter for the LoAR of October 2000 gives
substantial discussion of "medium contrast" fields, defined as
fields "divided so that half was a solid color and half was
evenly divided between color and metal." Such fields are, given
the Cover Letter discussion, clearly acceptable as long as the
charges on them have acceptable contrast (which is the main topic
of discussion in the Cover Letter). By the guidelines in the
Cover Letter for the October 2000 LoAR, in this submission, both
the field and the charges upon it have acceptable contrast.
[Oriana Luisa della Francesca, 02/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
Please note that the design of counterchanging a bordure over a
pile is considered "a weirdness" in the SCA - a single step from
period practice (per the LoAR of July 2001). One such step in
armory is acceptable, but more than one such step is considered
too far from period practice and reason for return. [Clef of
Cividale, 03/2003,
R-Calontir]
[Paly of four argent and gules, three spur rowels
counterchanged sable and argent] This submission also appears
to be overly modern "op-art" (or "optical art") style. As noted
in RfS VIII.4.d, "Artistic techniques and styles developed after
1600 should not be used in Society armory. Charges may not be
used to create abstract or op-art designs." Per the on-line
Artcyclopedia (http://www.artcyclopedia.com/), "Optical Art is a
mathematically-oriented form of (usually) Abstract art, which
uses repetition of simple forms and colors to create vibrating
effects, moir� patterns, an exaggerated sense of depth,
foreground-background confusion, and other visual effects." This
design is reminiscent of op-art and includes visually vibrating
effects and foreground-background confusion: one viewer, at
first, saw the primary charge as three lozenges conjoined in pall
inverted bases to center, because she thought that the shape
between the three spur rowels was the primary charge. [Davis
de Rowell, 09/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Paly of four sable and argent, three horses statant to
sinister counterchanged] Per the LoAR of August 2001, "In
general, we would like to see documentation for any charge
counterchanged over a multiply divided field, such as barry or
gyronny." No documentation was presented with this submission
showing a general practice of counterchanging multiple
complex-outlined charges (like horses) over a multiply divided
field (like paly). Such designs are intrinsically difficult to
identify, and do not appear to be period style. Without
documentation for this practice, it may not be registered.
[Glyn of Chesshire, 11/2003,
R-Meridies]
The lily of the valley plant is too tall and thin to be
counterchanged along its long axis. The slip, in particular,
loses its identifiability. Previous precedent has returned
similarly wide charges for similar reasons, for example, "[a mace
... counterchanged] There was discussion as to whether the mace
was wide enough to be counterchanged along its long axis.
Previous cases have decided that winged swords are not, and that
double-bitted axes and comets are. The issue is identifiability
such counterchanging was banned precisely because the charge
became unidentifiable. After examining the emblazon, we decided
that the charge was just barely too narrow to be counterchanged
like this" (LoAR of August 2000). [Clare Agatha MacLeod,
03/2004,
R-Northshield]

The
issue of acceptable depictions of couped and erased (for beast
heads and other body parts) arose in this month's Wreath meeting
concerning the device of Laurenço Affonso. Wreath and staff
conducted a post-meeting review of period depictions of beast
heads from British and Continental sources. Some of the sources
reviewed include the online Zuricher Wappenrolle,
Siebmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch, A European Armorial (the
Armorial of the Toison d'Or), Armorial Gelre, Armorial
Bellenville, Libro de Armeria del Reino de Navarra,
the Scots Roll, Laing's facsimile of Sir David Lindsay of
the Mount's 1542 Roll of Arms, Stodart's Scottish Arms
facsimile, Legh's Accedence of Armory (1597), and
Mackenzie of Rosehaugh's Science of Herauldrie (1680),
together with modern works containing plates with period pictures
of armory.

The most significant difference between couped and erased is that
couped was almost universally treated as a smooth line, while
erased was marked by the presence of significant and prominent
jags. Virtually all heads found in period heraldic artwork
are distinctly either couped or erased, without intermediate
artistic forms. This is also true of other cases of partial
animals, such as jambes and demi-beasts.

The smooth line found on couped heads was found depicted in a
number of manners, none of which was so universal to be deemed
the only acceptable manner of couping a head. One of these
depictions was a straight line, like the traditional modern
heraldic understanding of couped. The straight line was generally
parallel to the chief (ref. 1), parallel to the side of the
shield or part of an underlying ordinary (ref. 2), or, in the
case of heads couped close, perpendicular to the chief (ref. 3).
Another form of couping showed a slight convexity, as if the head
had been cut from the body with a sharp knife, and a slight trian
aspect of the neck is seen (ref. 4). Another convex form
resembled a shallow T-shirt neck line (ref. 5). Another form of
couping showed a smooth shallow concavity (ref. 6). Sometimes
there was an extreme concavity, particularly in Continental
sources (ref. 7). This concavity appears to be anatomically based
on the shoulders of the beast. Any of these forms are acceptable
for depictions of couped heads.

The portions of the ruling on Ulvar MacVanis's device in the LoAR
of July 2000 which are inconsistent with this evidence are
overturned. That ruling said, in part, this particular
rendition [of couped] is too far from known period
practices...the line [of couping] was very carefully drawn to
follow the shoulder line; it is bendwise at the top and palewise
at the bottom. Based on the period evidence above, it is
acceptable for couping to show such a deep curve that it appears
to follow the shoulder of the animal. It is worth noting that the
emblazon in Ulvar's submission has a much deeper point in the
front neck edge than was found in even the most extreme examples
found in the Continental sources examined, so the return for
Natural Depiction in Ulvar's case is appropriate.

In some very rare cases of boar's heads couped close, one could
find depictions of couping which were not entirely smooth, and
appeared to attempt to depict bristles on the boar's head. This
deviation from standard practice for boars is not surprising when
one considers that a boar's bristles are one of his main heraldic
identifiers. This bristly depiction of a boar's head
couped resembles neither erasing nor an indented line. See, for
example, the Polish arms of Swinka or Scheinichen on p. 149 of
A European Armorial, which shows bristle needles sticking
out past the back of the couped line. This distinctive coat is
very similar to no-doubt related coats from Silesia on f. 61 of
Siebmacher, and it interesting to note that Siebmacher's couping
is much smoother but does show a bit of bristly detail.

Erased necks were marked by prominent jags. By far the most
common number of jags found in the sources, regardless of
national origin, was three. However, as many as eight jags were
found with some frequency by the end of period. It should be
noted that the number of jags does not appear to be the critical
factor, but rather the prominence of the jags. The jags generally
appear to be approximately one-sixth to one-third of the height
of the entire erased head, and the jags were consistently wavy
like the rays of an estoile or a rayonny line of division (refs.
8, 9, 10 and 11). In no cases did the erasing appear to resemble
an indented line, neither large scale nor in a smaller
pinking-shear depiction.

Therefore, for purposes of recreating period armorial style for
erasing, the erasing should (1) have between three and eight
jags; (2) have jags that are approximately one-sixth to one-third
the total height of the charge being erased; and (3) have jags
that are not straight but rather are wavy or curved. The
predominance of the three-jag erasing is such that it can be
recommended throughout our period and across Europe. For purposes
of recreating period armorial style for couping, the couping
should be a smooth line which is either straight, slightly
convex, a shallow concave, or a recognizable extreme concave. A
straight line or a shallow curve can be recommended throughout
our period and across Europe.

Submissions which contain couped or erased charges that diverge
significantly from the guidelines above risk being returned for
unidentifiability or non-period style unless they are accompanied
by documentation.

References: These examples are chosen from the more commonly
available heraldic sources for ease of reference.

Ref. 10: Ibid., p. 109, Fenwick Roll, top row, second from left,
and middle row, second from right.

Ref. 11: Siebmacher, op. cit., plate 96, die Teufel v.
Pirckensee.

[11/2001,
CL]
[An armored leg erased at the calf argent in a stirrup with
leather Or] The erasing of the armored leg is too small to be
acceptable - what is colloquially known as "pinking shear
erasing" in the SCA College of Arms. There is a long discussion
in the November 2001 cover letter about how couped and erased
charges were drawn in period. The pertinent summary for erased
charges states:

For purposes of recreating period armorial style for erasing,
the erasing should (1) have between three and eight jags; (2)
have jags that are approximately one-sixth to one-third the
total height of the charge being erased; and (3) have jags that
are not straight but rather are wavy or curved. The
predominance of the three-jag erasing is such that it can be
recommended throughout our period and across Europe...

Submissions which contain ... erased charges that diverge
significantly from the guidelines above risk being returned for
unidentifiability or non-period style unless they are
accompanied by documentation.

[Middle, Kingdom of the, 03/2003,
R-Middle]
[three bear's heads couped] Some members of the College
thought that the bear's heads were erased close rather
than couped. The full-sized emblazon clearly shows these
heads as couped (and couped under the head rather than
couped close.) The backs of the bear's heads are somewhat
fuzzy, as is appropriate for the charge, and that probably led to
the misinterpretation of erased close. [Ásbj{o,}rn
kolbrúnarskáld, 08/2003,
A-Calontir]
[a horse's head couped] Some commentary suggested that the
head be blazoned in some fashion other than the default couped
because it was "not couped in the usual horizontal manner." We
direct the College to the Cover Letter of the November 2001 LoAR,
which discusses period treatments of both couped and erased in
some detail. Regarding the form of couped found in this emblazon,
the cover letter states that one of the period depictions was "a
straight line... [which could be] parallel to the side of the
shield." Because Francesca's horse's head is a primary charge,
drawn to fill the space, the bottom of the horse's head and neck
is near the sinister base portion of the shield. The angle of the
side of the shield in sinister base is approximately bendwise
sinister, and the couping of the horse's head in this emblazon is
roughly parallel to that sinister base portion of the side of the
shield. Thus, this is a period form of couping, and it is not
necessary to describe it further in blazon. [Francesca
Testarossa de' Martini, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]

COUPED and
THROUGHOUT

[Or semy of apples gules, a Celtic cross
vert] This device conflicts with Morgana Swansdottir, Or,
a Celtic cross equal armed, quarterly pierced and throughout
vert. There is one CD for adding the semy of apples. While we
give a CD for a standard cross throughout versus a cross couped,
for most crosses (such as crosses fleury) we do not give such
difference for couped versus throughout. The quarter piercing in
Morgana's cross is very small and the visual distinction it gives
is lost with the other piercings in the center of a Celtic cross.
Therefore, there is no difference for the type of cross.
[Muirgen of Applecross, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
PRECEDENT: As a general rule, ordinaries couped will be given a
CD from ordinaries throughout. This general rule does not apply
to specific ordinaries for which evidence has been presented that
the ordinary and its couped variant were used interchangeably in
period. In accordance with RfS X.4.e, if a particular ordinary
throughout and its couped variant are both found in period
armory, but were not considered to be "separate [charges] in
period", no difference will be granted between them. If the
ordinary throughout, or its couped variant, were not found in
period armory, then it will only "be considered different in type
if its shape in normal depiction is significantly different" from
the period form of the ordinary. [06/2002,
CL]
PRECEDENT: Because of the period evidence presented concerning
pall variants and in light of RfS X.4.e, no difference will be
given between the following four pall variants: the pall
(throughout), the pall couped, the shakefork, and the pallium.
Any of these four charges will be given a CD from a pall with a
decidedly different end treatment, such as a pall fleury or a
pall potent. [06/2002,
CL]
[a label dovetailed throughout] A peculiarity of SCA
blazon is that the standard label is throughout by default, but
the dovetailed label is couped by default. The blazon in this
submission label is both dovetailed and throughout, and both
these details must be blazoned. [Kharra Unegen, 07/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Sable, a saltire bretessed argent] This does not conflict
with a ... Sable, a saltire formy argent. Contrary to some
opinions espoused in the commentary, couping an ordinary is only
a significant change (worth a CD) rather than a substantial
change (clear by RfS X.2). We would only give a CD between a
saltire bretessed and a saltire bretessed and couped. However,
just as it seems appropriate to give X.2 (substantial) difference
between the very different period charges of a cross formy (which
is couped by default and has splayed ends) and a cross bretessed
(which is throughout by default and treated with an embattled
line), it is also appropriate to give X.2 difference between
similarly treated saltires. [Nikolai Toranovich, 01/2003,
A-An Tir]
[two walls couped with portals] We have reblazoned the
castles as walls, because a castle by default has a
tower at each end, and these charges do not have any towers.
According to the Pictorial Dictionary, walls are
throughout and embattled by default, so it is necessary to blazon
these walls as couped. It is also necessary to blazon the portals
explicitly. [Hans Schneckenburg, 09/2003,
A-Caid]
There is a CD between a default cross (throughout) and a cross
formy throughout. We routinely give difference between the couped
versions of these crosses (a cross couped versus a cross formy).
Nor has evidence been presented or found indicating that a cross
throughout would be interchangeable with a cross formy throughout
in period. [Jessimond of Greencrosse, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]

CRESCENT

There
is ... no difference between an increscent and an increscent
moon. [Galiena of Lindisfarne, 08/2001,
R-Meridies]
The charges on the chief are much too shallow to be identifiable
as crescents. They are thus not acceptable by RfS VII.7.a.
[Rhiannon Basset, 05/2003,
R-East]
[Per bend sinister gules and azure, in fess a roundel between
an increscent and a decrescent argent] This device does not
conflict with ... Per fess engrailed sable and argent, a
roundel between a decrescent and an increscent argent There
is a CD for changing the field. There is also a CD for changing
the posture of two of the three charges: each of the crescents
has been reversed. (Alternately, you can see it as a change of
arrangement of the charges, by swapping the outermost two
charges.)

Some commenters mentioned that this arrangement of a roundel and
crescents is not typical of period armory, and we concur, but
this armorial design is registerable as long as the charges
maintain their identifiability: "While we will reluctantly
register the arrangement of an increscent, roundel and decrescent
if they aren't conjoined, the conjoining makes them
unidentifiable as well as non-period" (LoAR September 1997 p. 23)
[Elizabeth Karlsdotter, 12/2003,
A-Drachenwald]
The crescents were blazoned as crescents pendant on the
LoI but crescents inverted on the submission form. We have
restored the submitter's preferred form. Both terms are
acceptable for use in the S.C.A. [Iror of Crystal Mynes,
03/2004,
A-Calontir]

CROSS

[a cross
fleury vs. cross of Santiago] As of the March 2001 LoAR, "A
cross patonce and a cross of Santiago are both considered
artistic variants of a cross flory; therefore, there is no CD for
a cross patonce versus a cross of Santiago." A cross fleury is
even closer in depiction to a cross of Santiago than a cross
patonce. [Cristoval Gitano, 08/2001,
R-Lochac]
[a cross formy within the loop of an ankh Or] The charge
group in base was blazoned on the letter of intent as a Coptic
cross. However, it is not a Coptic cross as defined in the SCA.
It more closely resembles an ankh with a cross formy within the
loop on the top of the cross. However, that does not truly
describe the armory because the loop is disproportionately large
and round for an ankh. This emblazon cannot be reproduced
accurately from blazon with our current heraldic vocabulary.
Without documenting this design as a heraldic charge, or group of
charges, in period, it must be returned. [Damiana bint
al-Katib, 10/2001,
R-Outlands]
[two Latin crosses vs. two Latin crosses fitchy] ...
nothing for fitching the crosses. [Faílenn inghean Mheanmain
of Ulster, 11/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[Gules, six Latin crosses formy Or] This is clear of ...
Azure, crusily Celtic Or. There is one CD for changing the
field and another CD for the difference between a Latin cross
formy and a Celtic cross. The annulet portion of the Celtic cross
is prominent enough to merit a CD on visual grounds and we are
not aware of any period interchangeability of these charges. This
is also clear of ... Chequy purpure, crusilly Or and Or.
Crusilly is, by default, of crosses crosslet ... There is X.2
difference between Latin crosses formy and crosses crosslet.
[Christoff von Rotenburg, 12/2001,
A-Meridies]
[Or semy of apples gules, a Celtic cross vert] This device
conflicts with Morgana Swansdottir, Or, a Celtic cross equal
armed, quarterly pierced and throughout vert. There is one CD
for adding the semy of apples. While we give a CD for a standard
cross throughout versus a cross couped, for most crosses (such as
crosses fleury) we do not give such difference for couped versus
throughout. The quarter piercing in Morgana's cross is very small
and the visual distinction it gives is lost with the other
piercings in the center of a Celtic cross. Therefore, there is no
difference for the type of cross. [Muirgen of Applecross,
02/2002,
R-Calontir]
There is only one CD for changing the type of cross from bottony
to Santiago per existing precedent, when one considers that a
cross bottony is an earlier version of, and closely resembles, a
cross crosslet: "[three crosses of Santiago Or vs. three
crosses crosslet fitchy Or]... there is a CD for type of
cross" (LoAR April 2000) [Maridonna Benvenuti, 02/2002,
R-Meridies]
[Argent, within a cross moline disjointed vert nine roses in
cross gules seeded Or] Crosses moline disjointed have
unmistakably forked and curled ends, like the ends of a millrind
or a regular cross moline. These curled ends are not apparent on
this emblazon. This must be returned for redrawing of the cross
moline disjointed.

The SCA allows crosses of all sorts to be charged, and a cross
moline disjointed should be no exception. It should be noted that
when charges are put on a cross moline disjointed, they obscure
the identifiability of the cross somewhat; the tertiary charges
contribute to greater visual separation and disassociation of the
already separated parts of the cross. Special care should be
taken with the artwork to preserve identifiability of all
elements of the armory. [Arthur de Beaumont, 04/2002,
R-East]
[a cross engrailed argent overall a gurges Or] The model
for this armory submission is in Foster's The Dictionary of
Heraldry. It depicts the arms of Robert Giffard, from the
Dering Roll c. 1275. Foster's blazon is Argent, a cross
engrailed sable, over all a gorge azure, and it is drawn much
like this submission. The gurges is depicted as concentric
annulets, each annulet overlying the "cup" parts of the engrailed
cross. The outside annulets are cut off by the sides of the
shield so only the corners show.

... In general, it appears that concentric annulets, of which the
outermost are cut off by the edges of the shield, are an early
form of gurges. Thus, it seems appropriate to give this emblazon
the benefit of the doubt, and assume that this is an acceptable
period-style combination of a gurges and a cross engrailed.
[Gregory of Glencairn, 05/2002,
A-Æthelmearc] [Ed.: There was extensive discussion for this
decision. It can be found under GURGES.]
Some commenters asked whether the cross of Cerdaña should
continue to be allowed in SCA armory, because it is an
SCA-invented charge without a strong pattern of SCA use. The
cross of Cerdaña is listed in the Pictorial Dictionary as
an "SCA invention; it's essentially a square set on one corner,
with a semi-circular notch on each side." This description makes
the cross sound much less period than it appears. The cross of
Cerdaña is a minor artistic variant of a cross clechy,
which is a standard period cross. We therefore see no reason to
disallow the continued registration of this type of cross.
[Ana María de Cerdanya, 07/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[a bordure sable crusilly plain Or] Some commenters
suggested that the bordure be blazoned as sable crusilly
Or, but such a blazon would be incorrect. The default
crusilly is of crosses crosslet. It is therefore necessary
to specify that this bordure is crusilly couped or
crusilly plain. [Cathal MacLean, 08/2002,
A-Atlantia]
"There is not a CD between a cross crosslet fitchy and a cross
bottony" (LoAR December 1999).

Because crosses bottony and crosses crosslet were not separate
charges in period, and because crosses and crosses fitchy were
not separate charges in period, RfS X.4.e gives no type
difference between a cross bottony and a cross crosslet fitchy.
It is important to recall that the cross bottony and the cross
crosslet are both used to represent the same charge throughout
our period's heraldry. The bottony form is found predominantly in
earlier artwork, and the crosslet form predominantly in later
artwork. Good examples of this evolution can be seen in the
Beauchamp arms, Gules, a fess between six crosses crosslet
Or. It is also important to recall that there is a fair
amount of evidence showing that the fitching of crosses in period
heraldry may be done as artist's license, particularly when the
crosses are in a group of strewn ("semy") charges. [Sean of
the South, 08/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[cross barby vs cross formy] With crosses, as with
quadrupeds, it is sometimes possible to get "substantial"
difference between two distinct charge types; in other cases it
is only possible to get "significant" difference, and in others
yet, no heraldic difference is given at all. In most cases where
substantial difference is given, it is because the charges in
question are standard period charges which are definitely not
standard period variants of one another and are always visually
distinct. A cross barby does not appear to be a standard period
cross, and has a standard equal-armed shape like a cross formy.
It thus seems appropriate only to give one CD for the difference
of type between these charges. [Wulf de Langhemerc,
09/2002,
R-Atlantia]
There is one CD for ... for the difference between a cross formy
and a Maltese cross. Both crosses were found in period, and they
were considered distinct from each other. The shapes of these
crosses are too similar to allow substantial (RfS X.2) difference
to be given between them. [Hugo van Halle, 10/2002,
A-Atlantia]
The cross was originally blazoned as alisée formy. The
ends are so slightly rounded that this depiction is merely an
unblazonable artistic variant of a cross formy. Crosses alisée
formy in their correctly-drawn globular form have been returned
in the past as non-period style, under the blazon term "formy
convexed" (see the LoAR of December 1998 for more
information).

The device conflicts with Ivan the Astronomer, Per fess wavy
argent and gules, in canton a cross patty gules. There is one
CD for changing the field. The cross patty in Ivan's device is a
standard cross formy, so there is no difference for changing the
type of the cross. [Michael Silverhand, 10/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
There is no difference between a cross formy and a Latin cross
formy. [Michael Silverhand, 10/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
This armory does not violate the long-standing strictures against
registering a single abstract symbol. A tau cross is a standard
heraldic charge in its own right. [Timothy Brother,
11/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[Azure, a tau cross Or] The device does not conflict with
the flag of Sweden (important non-SCA flag), Azure, a cross
Or. The two pieces of armory are clear of conflict by RfS X.2
due to the substantial change to the type of the cross. Precedent
indicates that "... there is a substantial difference between a
patriarchal cross and a plain cross throughout" (LoAR of February
2000). In this precedent, adding a second crossbar to a standard
four-armed cross was considered substantial difference. This case
seems analogous, as the tau cross omits the visually important
chiefmost arm of a cross. While period crosses showed some
variety in the way that the bottommost arm was drawn (fitchy or
not, for example), this license did not extend to the other three
arms of the cross. It was never standard in period to remove any
arm of a cross, not even the basemost. Therefore it seems
reasonable to consider a tau cross to be substantially different
from a default plain cross throughout. [Timothy Brother,
11/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[a cross fleury vs. a cross of four ermine spots] There is
a CD ... for changing the type of cross. RfS X.4.e states "Types
of charges considered to be separate in period, for example a
lion and an heraldic tyger, will be considered different." Both
crosses fleury and crosses of ermine spots were considered to be
separate in period and were drawn so that they could be visually
distinguished from each other.

Some commenters noted the following precedent: "We could see no
more than a minor point of difference between the cross of
conjoined ermine spots and the cross fleury" (LoAR 21 May 89, p.
23). It is important to recall that the criteria of the current
Rules for Submissions are not the same as the criteria of the
rules which were in effect in May 1989. The current version of
the rules relies on historical and visual criteria for
difference, while previous versions of the rules relied mostly on
visual criteria. Thus, a precedent that a particular change was
worth either a major or a minor point of difference under the old
rules does not clearly translate into the presence or absence of
a CD. [Geffroi de Mosterol, 12/2002,
A-Ealdormere]
[Sable, a saltire bretessed argent] This does not conflict
with a ... Sable, a saltire formy argent. Contrary to some
opinions espoused in the commentary, couping an ordinary is only
a significant change (worth a CD) rather than a substantial
change (clear by RfS X.2). We would only give a CD between a
saltire bretessed and a saltire bretessed and couped. However,
just as it seems appropriate to give X.2 (substantial) difference
between the very different period charges of a cross formy (which
is couped by default and has splayed ends) and a cross bretessed
(which is throughout by default and treated with an embattled
line), it is also appropriate to give X.2 difference between
similarly treated saltires. [Nikolai Toranovich, 01/2003,
A-An Tir]
There is a CD ... for the type difference between a cross potent
and a cross crosslet. Both types of cross are found throughout
the heraldic period and appear to be considered distinct charges.
[Marmaduc de Thystelesworthe, 01/2003,
A-Atlantia]
A cross crescenty has each arm ending in a crescent with its
horns pointing outwards. "While a cross crescenty is not, to the
best of our knowledge, a period cross, it follows the pattern of
period crosses, and is, therefore, registerable" (LoAR November
1998) [Celestria of Celtenhomme, 01/2003,
A-Calontir]
Some commenters asked whether this submission might have "too
many weirdnesses" to be acceptable. A "weirdness", according to
the Glossary of Terms, is a "break with the usual period style
provided that it is not overly obtrusive". While the use of a
Celtic cross in heraldry may be an SCA innovation, it is not
considered a weirdness, as similarly constructed crosses are
found in period heraldry. It is a reasonable extension of
practices found in period heraldry rather than a "break with the
usual period style." [Aindrea Mac Parthaláin, 01/2003,
A-Outlands]
[a cross patonce vs. a cross bottony] A second CD must
come from the type difference between a cross bottony and a cross
patonce.

SCA precedent has so far consistently held that there is a CD
between crosses bottony/crosslet and crosses
fleury/flory/patonce. Kraken provided some citations from
Papworth's Ordinary of British Armorials, taken from the
beginning of the section on single crosses. In these examples, we
find armory using both crosses bottony/crosslet, and crosses
fleury/flory/patonce, belonging to people with the same surname.
He therefore rightly raised the question of whether we should
continue to consider these types of cross to have been distinct
in period (and thus worth a CD for the change in type), or
whether we should consider them to have been artistic variants of
each other in period (with no CD for the change in type).

In researching this question, we have used Kraken's examples, and
added further research from Papworth, as well as Brault's The
Rolls of Arms of Edward I ("Aspilogia III"), Cecil
Humphery-Smith's Anglo-Norman Armory II, and the
Dictionary of British Armorials (henceforth abbreviated
DBA). We realize that these sources provide an unfortunately
Anglocentric view of heraldry, but the sources at our disposal
which allow this sort of research are largely English - and the
research is being used to elaborate on some initial information
that is also English.

The first, and most important question to ask, is whether
changing the type of cross could ever be a change indicating
different branches of the family (cadency). A change which could
indicate cadency is a change which could be worth a CD. It
appears that at least in some cases, the change in the type of
cross indicates cadency. One good example is the family of Ward,
as seen in the various sources cited above, where different
branches of the family are specifically cited as using distinct
cross types. As a general rule, type changes are one of the more
common types of cadency change in period - much more common than
cadency changes in posture and arrangement. So it is unsurprising
that changing the type of a cross is, in some cases, a cadency
change.

Since changing a cross type may sometimes indicate cadency, we
must therefore determine whether the changes in cross type which
we have found are indicative of cadency, or if they are
indicative of artistic variation. Some ways of demonstrating that
two types of charge are artistic variants of each other are:

- Demonstrating a general pattern of interchangeability between
the two types of charge: most armory using one sort of charge
is also found using the other sort of charge, or there is a
temporal trend so that earlier versions of the charge are drawn
in one way and later forms are drawn in the other way.

- Demonstrating that the choice of how to draw the charge was
most likely due to the artist, because the artist of one roll
would draw the charge consistently in one fashion and the
artist of another roll would draw the charge consistently in
another fashion.

- Demonstrating that there are numerous cases in which a single
individual bore variations of the same sort of cross.

In all the cases above, the analysis should consider
the source material and remove any erroneous material.

We were unable to demonstrate a general pattern of
interchangeability between these two types of cross. It appeared
that most of the time, a family used exclusively either crosses
bottony/crosslet (henceforth abbreviated "bottony") or crosses
patonce/fleury/flory (henceforth abbreviated "patonce"). This was
particularly evident in the examination of the better-researched
sources; as a general rule, Papworth's research is considered to
be less authoritative than Brault's, Humphrey-Smith's, or that of
the compilers of the DBA. Note that the DBA does not extend
through the "cross" category yet, but DBA includes a fair number
of examples of armory using either "bottony" or "patonce" crosses
as secondary or tertiary charges in the company of bends,
cantons, and chevrons.

We were unable to demonstrate that the choice of how to draw the
cross was due to stylistic variations between artists. As Kraken
noted, Harleian MS 1407 shows the family of Goldisbrgh/Goldesbry
in both "patonce" and "bottony variants". The families of
Brerlegh and Aton both are shown as using "patonce" and "bottony"
variants in Glover's Ordinary.

We were unable to find any trend where a single individual was
noted as using both "bottony" and "patonce" types of cross. We
freely admit that we were not able to isolate many cases where we
could attribute armory to a specific individual, so our
researches in this area were not particularly compelling.

Lastly, it seemed apparent that Papworth's citations from
Glover's Ordinary were responsible for a disproportionate number
of the cases where one family appeared to use "bottony" and
"patonce" crosses. These examples include the families of Aton,
Brerlegh, Ward, and Taddington/Tuddington. If Papworth's
interpretation of Glover's Ordinary is viewed as suspect, we are
left with almost no reason to consider crosses "bottony" and
"patonce" to be artistic variants of each other.

Thus, until new evidence is presented, we affirm the following
precedent: "...there is still a CD between a cross flory
and a cross bottony" (LoAR August 1999). [Miryam æt
West Seaxe, 02/2003,
A-Caid]
[an ankh with its lower limb surmounted by four bars
couped] The submitter provided evidence that the ankh with
the four crossbars had a particular hieroglyphic meaning in
ancient Egypt. The submitter also provided evidence there was
some Egyptian artwork extant in our period which used this design
as the head of a staff in representations of the god Ptah. Thus,
this design might have been seen by medieval and Renaissance
viewers of the ancient Egyptian artwork.

No evidence was presented that hieroglyphs, as a class, are
appropriate for heraldic use. They cannot be considered as
acceptable charges analogous to letters or other abstract
symbols, as their text meaning was not known during the Middle
Ages and Renaissance. They may have been known as artistic
designs, but as noted in RfS VII.2, "Use of an element in period
art does not guarantee its acceptability for armory. Use of the
Greek key design, which was common in period decorative art,
never carried over into armory."

This charge combination must therefore be accepted, or not, on
its own merits as a heraldic design element. An ankh (or crux
ansata) is accepted for use in SCA heraldry, even though it is
not a period heraldic charge, as it is a straightforward variant
of a Latin cross. However, crossing the basemost leg of a crux
ansata four times changes the charge so much that it is no longer
an acceptable variant of a period cross. The charge is too far
from period practice to be accepted as a Compatible Armorial
Element under RfS VII.6, given the evidence known to the College
at this time. Without documentation showing such a charge used in
heraldry, it may not be accepted for registration. [Lucius
Alexandrinus, 02/2003,
R-Caid]
[a Latin cross formy floretty] The formy portion of this
cross is not a standard cross formy. The arms do not spread out
all the way to the ends of the cross arm. Instead, the arms
spread out through most of their length, but they end in a
straight portion of cross arm. The straight portion is set off by
a detail line, so it appears to be a 'cap' at the end of the arm.
This does not appear to be a standard variant of a cross
formy.

In addition, it is not clear that a cross formy floretty is
acceptable period style. A cross formy bottony was returned as
non-period style in August 2000. Without documentation for this
charge, or for similar constructions combining a cross formy with
another type of complex cross end, this may not be registered.
[Tófa Jóhansdóttir, 03/2003,
R-Drachenwald]
[(Fieldless) A cross of Jerusalem purpure] "The Cross of
Jerusalem is a defined single charge, though it consists of
discrete elements in the same way than an ermine spot does."
(LoAR July 1996). As a result, there is no problem having a cross
of Jerusalem on a fieldless badge, even though portions of this
defined single charge are not conjoined. [Hans Faust der
herlat, 04/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[two crosses of Jerusalem each with its center cross a cross
crosslet] The charges around the bend are not standard
crosses of Jerusalem. Standard crosses of Jerusalem consist of a
cross potent between four smaller crosses couped. In these
crosses, the center cross is crosslet, not potent. While we are
not aware of any standard variants of the cross of Jerusalem in
period, it is relatively standard SCA practice to vary the
treatment of the end of a simple type of cross (such as a Celtic
cross fleury). A cross of Jerusalem is not a simple type of
cross, but the variant shown here is visually straightforward and
recognizable. Therefore, this variant of a cross of Jerusalem is
one step from period practice (a "weirdness"). Armory using only
one "weirdness" is stylistically acceptable. [Caranwyn
Silveroak, 05/2003,
A-East]
Two commenters asked whether the cross gurgity was too close to a
swastika (or fylfot) to be registered without causing offense.
The cross gurgity in this submission is drawn as it is in the
Pictorial Dictionary: each arm curves smoothly to a hook
which ends in a point. A swastika is drawn with arms which make a
right angle and end bluntly. This seems to be sufficient visual
distinction to avoid offense, especially as the commentary on the
matter was more in the nature of a question about the charge -
neither commenter stated that he or she found it difficult to
distinguish this charge from a swastika, or that he or she took
offense at the charge. [Uther Schiemann der Hunt, 06/2003,
A-West]
... a second CD for the type difference between a cross of
lozenges and a cross of mascles. [Arabella Mackinnon,
06/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Quarterly azure and argent, a cross moline throughout sable
between in bend a mullet and a bear's paw print argent] RfS
XI.3 states:

Divisions commonly used for marshalling, such as quarterly or
per pale, may only be used in contexts that ensure marshalling
is not suggested.

The rule continues in subsection (a):

a. Such fields may be used with identical charges over the
entire field, or with complex lines of partition or charges
overall that were not used for marshalling in period heraldry.

This piece of armory consists of a quarterly field
(a division commonly used for marshalling) which does not have
"identical charges over the entire field." This raises the
question of whether a cross moline throughout should be
considered a "charge overall that [was] not used for marshalling
in period heraldry." Precedent indicates that "crosses
throughout, crosses paty [sic: now called formy] throughout,
[and] crosses engrailed throughout were in marshalled arms [as
charges overlying the quarterly line of division]" (LoAR March
1994 p.10). Precedent also indicates that crosses couped (LoAR
March 1994 p.10) and crosses flory (not throughout) (LoAR June
2000) were not used in marshalled arms as charges overlying the
quarterly line of division.

The College generally felt that, based on the previous precedent
and the discussion of period marshalling in the commentary, the
following precedent should be set:

PRECEDENT: A cross throughout which overlies the line of
division on a quarterly field does not remove the appearance of
marshalling by quartering, even if the cross throughout is
treated with a complex line (such as engrailed) or has complex
ends (such as formy or moline.) A cross which is not
throughout, or which does not overlie the quarterly line of
division (such as a Tau cross), will remove the appearance of
marshalling unless evidence is presented that the cross under
discussion was used for marshalling in period heraldry.

Because the cross moline in this submission is
throughout and overlies the quarterly line of division, it does
not remove the appearance of marshalling by quartering in this
submission. [Dana the Quarrier, 06/2003,
R-Meridies]
[crosses of Santiago] A number of commenters were
concerned about the identifiability of the crosses of Santiago.
The cross of Santiago is one of the more variable forms of period
crosses, as can be seen by inspecting material pertaining to the
regalia of the Spanish or Portuguese Orders of Santiago [de la
Espada]. The bottom arm of the cross is always fitchy, but in a
way that more resembles a sword blade than the usual bottom arm
of a cross fitchy. The side arms are an often-flamboyant sort of
flory. The top arm ranges from a standard flory, to a subdued
form of flory, to a round- or card-pique-shaped "sword hilt"
shape. Comparing the crosses in this submission to the relatively
standard form in the Pictorial Dictionary, the top and
bottom arms of the crosses are almost identical. The side arms of
the crosses are, in each case, a flamboyant form of flory, but
the side arms in this submission are much flatter than usual.
Please advise the submitter to draw the side arms of the cross in
a more standard manner. [Gregorio Cristovalez de la Vega,
07/2003,
A-An Tir]
There is one CD between a cross throughout and a cross nowy.
[Elizabeth de Foxle, 07/2003,
A-Lochac]
[Per chevron azure and argent, a Norse sun cross argent]
Per previous precedent, this submission consists of a single
abstract symbol and thus may not be registered: "The Norse sun
cross is also the symbol for Earth, and by precedent symbols
cannot be registered as the sole charge. This ruling was applied
to Norse sun crosses in April 1994 (pg. 15, s.n. Barony of
Bonwicke)" (LoAR September 2000). [Curwinus Trevirensis,
07/2003,
R-Atlantia]
The crosses were originally blazoned as Crosses of Cleves,
which are Latin crosses flory. When the crosses are made fitchy,
the Latin nature of the cross becomes much less apparent, so we
have reblazoned these simply as crosses flory fitchy.
[Bróccín mac Gille Críst, 10/2003,
A-Meridies]
[for augmentation on a canton purpure a cross of Calatrava and
a bordure Or] The augmentation conflicts with ... Purpure,
a cross moline disjointed, a bordure Or. The augmentation in
this submission appears to be a display of the armory Purpure,
a cross of Calatrava and a bordure Or, which has one CD ...
for changing the type of cross, but does not have the substantial
difference required to qualify for RfS X.2. [Edward Cire of
Greymoor, 10/2003,
R-An Tir]
[Gules, on a cross quarter-pierced Or four eagles sable]
Conflict with ... Gules, on a cross Or five ladybugs gules
marked sable. Per the LoAR of February 2000, "you cannot
'blazon your way out of' a conflict." A cross quarter-pierced may
also be blazoned as a cross charged with a delf
throughout. As a result, one can blazon this submission as
Gules on a cross Or a delf throughout gules between four
eagles sable. RfS X.4.j.i states that "Generally ... changes
must affect the whole group of charges to be considered visually
significant, since the size of these elements and their visual
impact are considerably diminished." In this case, because the
change of tincture of four-fifths of the charges, and the change
of the type of all the charges is so significant, one CD is
allowed for the changes to the tertiary charge group under RfS
X.4.j.i. However, a second CD is required. [Orban von Ulm,
10/2003,
R-Meridies]
Per the LoAR of July 2003, "There is one CD between a cross
throughout and a cross nowy." The same CD applies between a cross
throughout and cross nowy quadrate. Note that no evidence has
been presented or found indicating that a cross nowy (or a cross
nowy quadrate) would be a period artistic variant of a cross
throughout. There is certainly unmistakable visual difference
between the two types of cross, whether the nowy is the default
circular nowy (per the July 2003 ruling) or whether it is the
square nowy quadrate. [Jessimond of Greencrosse, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
There is a CD between a default cross (throughout) and a cross
formy throughout. We routinely give difference between the couped
versions of these crosses (a cross couped versus a cross formy).
Nor has evidence been presented or found indicating that a cross
throughout would be interchangeable with a cross formy throughout
in period. [Jessimond of Greencrosse, 11/2003,
A-An Tir]
... no difference given for the type of cross: "A cross patonce
and a cross of Santiago are both considered artistic variants of
a cross flory; therefore, there is no CD for a cross patonce
versus a cross of Santiago" (LoAR March 2001). [Brigit
Gilbertstoune, 11/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[(Fieldless) A cross patonce azure] This does not conflict
with Morgana Elisabetta Rosatti, (Fieldless) A cross fleury
azure irradiated Or. Irradiated charges, when drawn
correctly, are a CD from non-irradiated charges. Brooke-Little's
An Heraldic Alphabet, defines irradiated as
"Surrounded by rays of light. An irradiated charge is usually
shown as if it were charged on a sun." The irradiated cross here
is drawn appropriately, with very pronounced irradiation. There
is thus one CD for fieldlessness, and a second CD for the
irradiation. [Brigit Gilbertstoune, 11/2003,
R-Atlantia]
The cross formy floretty may be found in period armory, in the
arms of Roger de Swynnerton, Argent, a cross formy flory at
the ends sable, as cited (among other places) in The Rolls of
Arms of Edward I volume I p.500 by Gerard J. Brault, and cited
and illustrated in Foster's The Dictionary of Heraldry
p.188 (under the slightly different spelling Roger de
Swinnerton.) [Tófa Jóhansdóttir, 12/2003,
A-Drachenwald]
[a cross fourchy between the tines of each fork a roundel]
This was blazoned in the Letter of Intent (and by the submitter)
as a cross Osmorog. The submitter provided some
documentation which the submitting herald provided, at least in
part, to the College on-line. The Letter of Intent says that the
documentation has associated dates in period, but the on-line
versions of the documentation did not provide any dates or any
associated explanatory text. The provided documentation only
showed the emblazon and fringes of the surrounding text, which
were cut off when the documentation was originally reproduced or
scanned. No other documentation was provided to Wreath from the
submitting kingdom.

The College's research noted that the charges surrounding the
cross Osmorog (roundels in this emblazon) are not integral parts
of the cross Osmorog but need to be blazoned separately. The
College's research also resulted in significant doubt about
whether the cross in this submission is a correct depiction of a
period cross Osmorog. We have thus chosen to blazon this device
using standard Western terms.

We considered blazoning this either as a variant of a cross
moline or of a cross fourchy. Because the ends of a
cross moline are pointed and deeply curved, and the ends of this
cross are couped flat and only slightly curved, we have
reblazoned these as crosses fourchy. [Zygmunt Nadratowski,
01/2004,
A-Middle]
We would like to address one specific misconception which,
according to some commenters, derived from an overgeneralization
of a conflict table. One conflict table concerning crosses had a
category of "cross throughout" (with sub-categories for the
particular types of cross throughout, such as equal-armed
Celtic quarter-pierced.) As a result of the cursory scan of
this category, which generally gave a CD between the "throughout"
cross and the cross with which it was compared, more than one
College of Arms member incorrectly generalized that all
crosses throughout were a CD from all crosses which were
not throughout. The precedents listed in the LoAR table
explicitly denied that generalization, but one had to look at the
cited precedents to see that information. One example of a
precedent referenced by the conflict table that denied this
generalization:

[A Celtic cross vs. a Celtic cross equal-armed, quarterly
pierced and throughout] There is no heraldic difference for the
charge being throughout, or not. However, there's a CD ... for
the quarter-piercing, which is visually equivalent to adding a
tertiary delf. (Toirrdelbach Ua Mel Doraid, October, 1992, pg.
16)

A relatively recent LoAR also addressed this issue.
Clarifying comments have been inserted into the quote in square
brackets:

While we give a CD for a standard cross throughout [the
ordinary] versus a cross couped, for most crosses (such as
crosses fleury) we do not give such difference for couped
[not-throughout] versus throughout. (LoAR February 2002).

[03/2004,
CL]
[Vert, on a cross flory Or a rose proper] Conflict with
... (Fieldless) On four demi-fleurs conjoined in cross Or a
torteau. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There is no
difference between the four demi-fleurs conjoined in cross
charged with (a tertiary charge) and a cross flory charged with
(a tertiary charge): the tertiary charge obscures any significant
difference between these two designs.

There is also no difference for changing the type only of the
tertiary charge. A cross flory is not a "suitable charge" for RfS
X.4.j.ii, which states in pertinent part, "A charge is suitable
for the purposes of [RfS X.4.j.ii] if (a) it is simple enough in
outline to be voided..." Crosses fleury are analogous to crosses
moline for purposes of considering whether they are too
complicated to void or to fimbriate. The LoAR of July 1999
stated, "This is being returned for violating the precedent set
by Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme as Laurel (January 15, 1993,
cover letter) concerning which charges are suitable for
fimbriation. A cross moline is too complex to fimbriate."

In the cases of both crosses moline and crosses flory, some
period depictions of the cross have ends which are complicated
enough that the cross is arguably too complex to void by the
criteria of the Cover Letter dated January 15, 1993 (for the
November 1992 LoAR), although many other period depictions of
these crosses are simple enough to void by the same criteria.
While we are not certain whether we would rule, de novo,
that crosses moline are too complicated to void, insufficient
evidence has been presented to overturn the previous precedent
concerning the voidability of crosses moline. [Victoria
Anthoinette Sauvignon, 03/2004,
R-Calontir]
No documentation was presented, and none was found, for the
cross pattée concave in period armory. This cross has ends
that are straight throughout most of their length, and flare out
only at the very ends of the arm. As far as we are aware, period
crosses formy flare out along the entirety of their length.

The term concave, as found in a few previous SCA
registrations, appears to apply to a cross that is somewhat nowy
lozengy (or nowy of a lozenge). This cross is only slightly nowy
of a lozenge. Because the blazon term concave is not
well-defined in real-world or SCA armory, it should be avoided in
the future. [Gabriel de Morland, 03/2004,
R-Outlands]

CROSSBOW and
BOW

[in pale a stag at gaze argent and a bow bendwise
sinister, drawn and with arrow nocked Or] The armory is not
overly complex "slot machine" heraldry (using more than two types
of charge in a single charge group) because prior precedent
indicates that a bow and arrow in a standard position are treated
as if they were a single charge. A drawn bow and arrow are in a
standard position for a bow and arrow.

[considering a strung bow and arrow along with another
charge] The question was raised as to whether or not this is
considered slot machine since it has three dissimilar charges
in one group. While it is true that it has three charges, when
a bow and arrow are in their standard, expected position they
are considered one charge, just like a sword in a scabbard is
considered one charge. It is only when they are separated, or
put into non standard positions for their normal use, such as
being crossed in saltire, that they become two separate
charges. (LoAR April 1999)

[Rotheric Kynith, 06/2003,
A-Caid]
... they are as different in appearance from each other as a bow
and a crossbow (ruled substantially different in the LoAR of
November 1996) ... [Diethelm Waltorfer, 12/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
While we blazon the distinction between an uncocked crossbow and
a default (cocked) crossbow, we do not give difference between
them. [Siegfried Sebastian Faust, 03/2004,
R-Atlantia]

CUP and CHALICE

After due
consideration, the visual differences between tankards and
mortars and pestles are sufficient for a CD. [Elizabeth
Rea, 02/2002,
A-Meridies]
[(Fieldless) A covered cup argent] Conflict with Kathleen
Erin-go-Burne-the-Bragh, Vert, a chalice argent containing
flames Or. There is a CD for fieldlessness. There is no type
difference between a cup and a covered cup. The flame in
Kathleen's cup is a maintained charge, and its deletion is not
worth difference. [Ysoria de Brai, 08/2002,
R-Atlantia]

DEFAULTS

A Wake
knot, as per the PicDic, is fesswise by default. [Nottinghill
Coill, Barony of, 08/2001,
A-Atlantia]
A proper boar is brown by default according to the Glossary of
Terms, so this needn't be blazoned as a brown boar.
[Áedán of Windhaven, 08/2001,
A-Middle]
A lion's paw escallop is, effectively, a default escallop.
[Lyondemere, Barony of, 09/2001,
A-Caid]
[A loom weight pendant from a hank of yarn] This shape of
loom weight is easily recognized by weavers. The identifiability
is enhanced by the hank of yarn; loom weights without associated
yarn are unlikely to be identifiable as loom weights. Marta
Hoffman's The Warp-Weighted Loom indicates that loom
weights in period were found in a variety of shapes. This loom
weight is an oval disk with a small hole near the top. Other
varieties include pyramidal and annular. This form is now the
default loom weight for the SCA. Other loom weight shapes will
need to be specified in blazon. [Barbara atte Dragon,
10/2001,
A-Middle]
[a dragon rampant] Winged quadrupedal monsters have their
wings elevated and addorsed by default when rampant. [Feme
inghean Donnabháin, 10/2001,
A-Trimaris]
Regardless of the botanical propriety of a period orange carrot,
there is no one obvious color for a carrot to take in period, and
therefore there is no default tincture for a carrot proper.
[Randall Carrick,10/2001,
R-Outlands]
[tennis racket] There is a strong pattern of use of
constructed artifacts from all walks of life in period heraldry.
The type of tennis racket drawn here is late 16th C and, as the
defining example in the SCA, is now the default tennis racket.
[Bertrand du Beaumanoir, 11/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
The lilies in Ella's device are in the default palewise posture.
[Ella de Lille, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[in chief three lozenges] The original blazon read, in
latter part, ... and in chief three lozenges in fess Or.
Three items in chief will also be in fess by default. We do find
armory in the SCA with three items in chief, arranged one and
two, but this arrangement should always be blazoned. [John de
Lochabre, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
Crusilly is, by default, of crosses crosslet ... [Christoff
von Rotenburg, 12/2001,
A-Meridies]
The College of Arms should recall that lymphads, by default, have
the sails furled and the oars in action. If the sail is unfurled,
as here, it must be blazoned. The state of the oars (which are
omitted in this emblazon) is too small a detail to require
blazoning. [Daniel Tremayne, 01/2002,
A-An Tir]
... charges in annulo are clockwise by default... [Isabelle
d'Avallon� 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
Labels are throughout by default, so this need not be blazoned.
[Thomas de Lacy, 02/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
... there is no default proper tincture for a camel.. [Aminah
of Nithgaard,03/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[an oak tree couped proper] Some commenters suggested that
this tree be blazoned simply as a tree, rather than the
oak tree provided in the submitter's blazon. The tree in
this submission has a round shape, but it is drawn without acorns
and without distinctly shaped leaves. It is not drawn with any
features which would identify it as some sort of tree other than
an oak (such as maple leaves, or fruit). The default round-shaped
tree is an oak tree. Therefore, this is an acceptable emblazon
for an oak tree, and it seems reasonable to keep the submitter's
preferred blazon term. [Bethoc of Ravenswood, 03/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a reremouse displayed head to dexter] The reremouse is
both displayed and guardant by default. Since this reremouse is
displayed but has its head turned to dexter, its posture has been
explicitly blazoned for clarity. [Mat of Forth Castle,
03/2002,
A-Meridies]
[Per bend Or and vert, an elephant argent] Conflict with
Andrew Castlebuilder, Per chevron purpure and Or, overall an
elephant [Elephas sp.] trumpeting passant proper, on its back a
carpet purpure, fimbriated Or, supporting a tower argent, masoned
sable. There is a CD for changing the field but no difference
for adding the tower. Towers are commonly found on the back of
elephants, and must be blazoned when present. However, such
towers are of much less visual weight than the elephant, and are
therefore equivalent to maintained charges. The tower in Andrew's
arms follows this pattern. [Dionello Cristoforo dei
Medici, 03/2002,
R-An Tir]
In the course of researching this submission it became apparent
that the SCA has had no consistent default arrangement for
charges on a pile. Based on Roger Pye's research (A Return to
First Principles: I - The Pile, Coat of Arms VII (49) pp. 4 -
6, January 1962), the default for charges on a pile should be
in pale. It was not until the reign of Henry VIII that we
find a group of charges on a pile arranged other than in pale:
specifically, a group of three charges on a pile arranged two and
one. [James of Nayland, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
This chimera is drawn as the one in Bossewell's 1572
Armorie. It has a lion's body, a lion's head, a goat's
head, and a dragon's head regardant. This is the default SCA
composition for a chimera. [Maximilian Gartenheit of
Heatherwyne, 04/2002,
A-Caid]
... squirrels are sejant erect by default and almost
always found in that posture in period armory. [Isabel
Fosson, 04/2002,
A-Middle]
The simurgh has been explicitly blazoned as close, since
simurghs have no default posture. [Tavia of Persia,
05/2002,
R-Outlands]
After reading the discussion provided by the College, it seems
appropriate to rule that the daffodil, like the lotus, has no
default posture. The posture of the flower should be blazoned
explicitly, such as affronty or bell to chief.
Daffodils addorsed are daffodils with the bells facing
away from each other.

Daffodils are not slipped and leaved by default. The flower
portion of the daffodil may be referred to either as a
daffodil or as a daffodil blossom. [06/2002,
CL]
We have blazoned the lightning bolt as palewise because
neither the Pictorial Dictionary nor the Glossary of Terms
gives a default for this SCA-invented charge. [Maddalena de
los Angeles, 06/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[a label dovetailed throughout] A peculiarity of SCA
blazon is that the standard label is throughout by default, but
the dovetailed label is couped by default. The blazon in this
submission label is both dovetailed and throughout, and both
these details must be blazoned. [Kharra Unegen, 07/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
In the SCA, winged objects such as winged swords, and
(presumably) winged skulls, have the wings displayed by default.
[Delphina the Mad, 07/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[a drop spindle inverted] Our textile pals were able to
identify the drop spindle on first glance. They also note that
some styles of period drop spindle have the whorl to chief, so a
spindle with the whorl to chief would not have been intrinsically
unrecognizable in a period context. However, the default drop
spindle in the SCA has its whorl to base, so we have blazoned
these as inverted. [Siobhán NicDhuinnshléibhe,
07/2002,
A-Atlantia]
[Per pale vert and sable, six gouttes three two and one
argent] It is not clear whether the default for six objects
on a per pale field should be three two and one (as on a
plain field) or two two and two (so the charges are placed
on opposite sides of the line of division.) We have thus blazoned
the arrangement of the gouttes explicitly. [Malcolm
Makalestyr, 07/2002,
A-Outlands]
Herons are close by default, so the posture need not be blazoned.
[Herons Reach, Shire of, 08/2002,
A-An Tir]
Winged quadrupeds have their wings addorsed by default, so this
detail need not be specified in the blazon. [Andreu
Recheles, 09/2002,
A-An Tir]
Note that the SCA default for six objects on a plain field is
three two and one. This matches the default for six
objects on a plain field in most of the times and places in which
heraldry is found before 1600. [Edward of Hartwell,
09/2002,
A-Caid]
Angels are affronty by default and so contourny is not a well
defined term: the angel must be r[e]blazoned as statant
contourny. Because an angel is a humanoid monster, the term
statant is understood to mean "standing as a human does":
it is not necessary to blazon an angel as statant erect.
(And it is not period heraldic practice, nor is it respectful, to
emblazon an angel statant as an animal would be statant, down on
all fours.) [Rivenvale, Shire of, 10/2002,
R-Middle]
[Vert, a fern frond argent] The default SCA fern frond has
a long triangular shape with fine horizontal cuts. The stem of
the frond is at the center of the base of the triangle. The
charge therefore is very similar in outline to that of a standard
heraldic fir or pine tree. Because a fern frond has not been
demonstrated to be a period charge, its type difference from
other charges is determined, per RfS X.4.e, on solely visual
grounds. There is too strong a resemblance between a heraldic fir
tree and a fern frond to allow difference on solely visual
grounds. Therefore, this conflicts with ... Vert, a fir tree
eradicated ermine. There is only one difference, for changing
the tincture of the charge. [Mathias ap Morgan, 11/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
[(Fieldless) A bee statant proper] In the SCA, a bee
statant has its wings addorsed by default, as in the
August 2002 registration of Robert Pine's device.

This badge does not conflict with Aideen the Audacious,
(Fieldless) A bumblebee fesswise proper. There is one CD
for fieldlessness. Aideen's bumblebee is in its default tergiant
posture, and then rotated fesswise. There is a CD between a bee
tergiant fesswise and a bee statant. Both postures show the bees
with fesswise bodies, but a bee tergiant fesswise has wings
visible on both sides of the bee's body, while a bee statant only
has wings visible on the chiefmost side of the body. This
difference is worth a CD, analogous to the difference between a
bird rising wings displayed and a bird rising wings addorsed.
[Catríona nic Theàrlaigh, 12/2002,
A-An Tir]
The default SCA tai-chi is per fess embowed counter-embowed
argent and sable, per the Pictorial Dictionary under roundel.
This tai-chi is per pale embowed counterembowed with the
sable part to dexter: as a result, this emblazon uses a
tai-chi fesswise reversed proper. [Geoffrey
Arkwright, 12/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
PRECEDENT: The default orientation for a trillium has one petal
to base, so the petals are in pall. A trillium inverted has one
petal to chief, so the petals are in pall inverted. [01/2003,
CL] [Ed.: See FLOWER --
Trillium for the complete discussion]
[Per bend sinister azure and sable, three crosses potent two
and one argent] The three crosses are blazoned explicitly as
two and one because, on a per bend sinister field, three charges
default to having two in the dexter chief portion of the field
and one in the sinister base portion. [Marmaduc de
Thystelesworthe, 01/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[A wild ginger flower] The wild ginger flower in Ginevra's
badge has the petals in pall inverted (with one petal to chief).
This is the default for wild ginger flowers, which is the
opposite of the default for the similarly three-petalled trillium
(see the cover letter of the January 2003 LoAR for more details).
[Ginevra Rodney, 02/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[two brushes in saltire sable bristled "brown"] The
brushes in the Letter of Intent were blazoned as sable handled
proper. However, the brushes in the emblazon have sable
handles and brown bristles. There is no defined default tincture
for an artist's brush. Thus, this is not a reasonable depiction
of a proper brush. As the brush cannot otherwise be blazoned
accurately, it must be returned. [Dorothea Manuela Ponçe,
02/2003,
R-Atlantia]
... the leaf in the emblazon is not the default leaf, and no
documentation was presented indicating what type of leaf it is. A
default leaf is oval-shaped, possibly with a pointed tip. This
leaf has five pointed lobes. We were unable to identify it as any
particular sort of leaf, and were thus unable to blazon it
correctly. Without the ability to blazon the leaf correctly, this
may not be accepted by RfS VII.7.b. [Emma Wolvyne,
02/2003,
R-Caid]
[a triple-peaked mountain issuant from base] We note that
a mountain is issuant from base by default but are keeping
the submitters' requested blazon of issuant from base, which
matches their previous badge's blazon. [Mountain
Confederation, 02/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
While swans are rousant by default, their barnyard cousins,
geese, are close by default. Note, for example, the canting arms
of Die Gansen on fol. 150 of Siebmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch,
and von Ganse on fol. 182 of the same volume. Each of these
canting coats uses a goose close as the sole charge on the
armory. [Effie Little, 03/2003,
A-An Tir]
A default leaf has an oval shape, possibly with a pointed tip
(the leaves in this case have pointed tips). The spiky holly leaf
has one CD from a default leaf. [Matilda in the Holis,
03/2003,
A-Middle]
Note that a shamrock, in the SCA, is defined as a trefoil with
heart-shaped foils. A shamrock with any number of foils other
than three must be blazoned explicitly. A default (three-foiled)
shamrock is slipped by default, like a trefoil. If there are more
than three foils on the shamrock, the charge is not slipped by
default (which is also the case with the similar n-foils).
[Ærne Clover, 07/2003,
A-An Tir]
[a panther sejant head to dexter argent] Table 3 of the
Glossary of Terms indicates that the panther (which is to say,
the default "English-style" heraldic panther) is guardant by
default. As a result we must explicitly state that this panther
has its head to dexter. Note that the Continental panther does
not have an SCA default posture.

Please note that the discussions of the panther's default posture
in the Pictorial Dictionary in the SCA have been
superceded by the listing in the Glossary, which has been
available for some years. [Katerina McGilledoroughe,
08/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
Most demi-quadrupeds (including winged demi-quadrupeds, such as
demi-griffins) are erect in period armory. Erect appears
to be the default posture for such charges in the real world.
Therefore, erect should be the default posture for
demi-quadrupeds in the SCA. [Thomas von Hessen, 08/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Argent chapé azure, three goblets two and one gules] It
is not clear what the default arrangement for three charges on a
chapé field should be. The usual default on a plain field (two
and one) doesn't fit well on a chapé field, and thus seems an
unlikely default for that field. We have thus blazoned the
arrangement explicitly. [Waldemar Stanislaw of White
Mountain, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]
The charges in this device are the default SCA spur rowel, which
is a pierced mullet of six points (as noted in the Pictorial
Dictionary). [Davis de Rowell, 09/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[Quarterly gules and azure, in bend sinister a Danish axe
sustained by a bear rampant contourny argent] This is clear
of conflict with the Barony of Bjornsborg, ...(Fieldless) A
bear statant erect reguardant contourny supporting a berdiche
blade to sinister argent. There is one CD for fieldlessness.
There is another CD for arrangement: the Bjornsborg bear and its
sustained axe are in the default arrangment for a statant erect
beast sustaining a polearm (in fess), while the charges in this
submission are in bend sinister. [Leifr Vagnsson, 09/2003,
A-Outlands]
[Or, in pale two talbots courant contourny gules] In
period armory, one would usually expect two long horizontal
charges on a plain field to be in pale. However, the SCA does not
have a default arrangement for two charges on a plain field.
Armory using two charges on a plain field is so uncommon in both
SCA and real-world heraldry that it is best to blazon the
arrangement of such charges explicitly rather than define default
arrangements. We have therefore explicitly blazoned these talbots
as in pale. [Aster Peyton, 10/2003,
A-An Tir]
Please recall that the rising posture, according to a number of
sources, needs to have the wings explicitly blazoned as either
addorsed or displayed. The SCA has at times
registered birds rising wings addorsed simply as
rising, but this pattern has not yet been so clearly
established that we wish to define it as a default at this time.
[Erik von Winterthur, 10/2003,
A-An Tir]
[Per saltire sable and gules, a dragon segreant Or] ...
and another CD for the difference in posture between a dragon
segreant and a wyvern passant. The wyvern posture erect is
equivalent to the dragon posture segreant. [Godwin of
Edington, 10/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
...note that wyverns are statant by default... [Godwin of
Edington, 10/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
By examination of period armory, ducks and geese are close by
default - this is by far the most common posture for either of
these birds. Ducks and geese do not share the same default
posture as the larger and more aggressive swan, which is rousant
by default. [Svana ormstunga Vermundardottir, 11/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[three piles palewise wavy] Note that three piles are
in point by default, so it is necessary to explicitly
blazon the piles as palewise. According to the
Pictorial Dictionary, "this [in point] was the medieval
default for multiple piles, due to their derivation from pinched
pallets. If multiple piles are palewise, instead of in point,
this should be explicitly blazoned." [Skári Skey, 11/2003,
A-Caid]
Note that, in the SCA, the default sheep does not have horns...
[Boddi bjarki Bjarnarson, 11/2003,
A-East]

DELF

... a delf ploye
is not a simple delf. As far as we can tell it is only used as a
period charge in Mameluk heraldry, and is thus somewhat of a
weirdness in general Western style. [Tarvin, Shire of,
08/2001,
R-Atlantia] [Ed.: Returned for style problems]
[(Fieldless) On a delf gules a lozenge argent] To quote
Baron Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme, as Laurel, on the subject
of fieldless badges:

Fieldless badges consisting only of forms of armorial display,
such as escutcheons, lozenges and delfs, are not acceptable
since in use the shield shape does not appear to be a
charge, but rather the field itself. This presents an entirely
different armory for view. (LoAR 9/93 p.25)

As Palimpsest notes, For any who question the
interpretation of a delf as a mode of armorial display, note that
in Carlisle Herald's visitation of London in 1530 are found
numerous references to defacing or removing 'Skochines, Squares,
and Losenges wrongfully eusid'. [Rycharde de Bruce the
Fowler, 11/2001,
R-Artemisia]
[(Fieldless) A delf azure] As noted in the April 2002
LoAR, "A 'shield shape' which is also a standard heraldic charge
will be acceptable as a fieldless badge in a plain tincture, as
long as the tincture is not one of the plain tinctures that is
protected armory in the SCA". Since Azure is not protected
armory in this SCA, a fieldless badge consisting of a delf
azure is acceptable, and does not appear to be an independent
display of arms. [Trimaris, Kingdom of, 06/2002,
A-Trimaris]

DICE

The device is
returned for redrawing. The dice in this emblazon are drawn with
an edge towards the viewer. "While dice were drawn in
perspective, the known period examples depicted them face
forward, rather than edge forward. This minimizes the effect of
perspective. Therefore, we must return this device for redrawing"
(LoAR April 2000). [Talorgen mac Brudi, 06/2003,
R-Meridies]
[three dice bendwise sinister] The dice are shown with one
face to the viewer (so that the front face is shaped like a delf)
but each die is oriented bendwise sinister (so that the front
face looks like a delf lozengewise.) Dice are found in this
orientation in period, as can be seen in the canting arms of
members of the Wurlf family (wurf is German for a die or
cube) on folios 24r and 24v of the late 14th/early 15th C
Botenbuch der Bruderschaft St. Christoph auf dem
Arlberg.

It is acceptable to show dice with some perspective, as long as
the perspective is not too deep and one face is oriented directly
towards the viewer so that it is shaped like a delf. (It is not
acceptable to draw dice with an edge towards the viewer, rather
than a face towards the viewer.) Please advise the submitter to
draw the perspective of the other sides of the dice more
shallowly - while period dice are often drawn with some
perspective, they are generally not drawn with such deep
perspective. [Anna Francesca Massone, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]
The dice are each shown with one edge facing the viewer, which is
not period style. "While dice were shown in perspective, the
known period examples depicted them face forward, rather than
edge forward. This minimizes the effect of perspective.
Therefore, we must return this device for redrawing" (LoAR of
April 2000). [Alexander gagarr, 11/2003,
R-Atenveldt]

DIFFERENCE --
SubstantialThis category lists only rulings where a substantial
difference is granted. In cases with extended discussion, the
complete ruling can be found in the indicated section.see alsoBIRDS and SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE

Roses and fleurs-de-lys are substantially
different. [Katarina Kittmann, 08/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[a thistle vs. a rose] Thistles and shamrocks were ruled
to be substantially different in October 1999; these should be
just as distinct visually. No evidence has been produced that a
change from a rose to a trefoil [Ed: Should be thistle] as
a primary charge was used for period cadency, which also shows
that they are substantially different as per rule X.2.
[Muirenn inghean Chiaráin, 08/2001,
A-Meridies]
There is substantial difference between a cinquefoil and a
dandelion. [Emma Dandelion, 11/2001,
A-Ansteorra] [see FOIL or FLOWER -- Miscellaneous]
There is substantial difference between a tower and a properly
drawn chess rook ... [William fitzBubba, 12/2001,
A-East] [see CASTLE or CHESS PIECE]
There is X.2 difference between Latin crosses formy and crosses
crosslet. [Christoff von Rotenburg, 12/2001,
A-Meridies]
There is substantial difference for purposes of RfS X.2 between a
feather and a feather fan. [Nakano Zenjirou Tadamasa,
02/2002,
A-Calontir] [see FEATHER or CHARGE -- Miscellaneous]
Party of six pieces is substantially different from checky.
[Jeanne Marie Lacroix, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
There is substantial difference between a standard heraldic lily
(a trumpet shaped flower in profile) and a daisy (a multipetalled
disk shaped flower affronty). [Katherine Merivale,
09/2002,
A-Caid]
Therefore it seems reasonable to consider a tau cross to be
substantially different from a default plain cross throughout.
[Timothy Brother, 11/2002,
A-Artemisia] [see CROSS]
[a saltire bretessed vs. a saltire formy] However, just as
it seems appropriate to give X.2 (substantial) difference between
the very different period charges of a cross formy (which is
couped by default and has splayed ends) and a cross bretessed
(which is throughout by default and treated with an embattled
line), it is also appropriate to give X.2 difference between
similarly treated saltires. [Nikolai Toranovich, 01/2003,
A-An Tir] [see CHARGE --
Miscellaneous]
A correctly drawn goutte, with a long wavy tail, is substantially
different from a roundel. [Siobhan inghean ui Dhonnabhain,
01/2003,
A-East]
[a dandelion plant vert with three flowers, the centermost in
profile, the outer flowers affronty, Or slipped gules] This
does not conflict with ... Argent, a pimpernel gules, slipped
and leaved, within a bordure vert. A pimpernel is effectively
a cinquefoil and there is substantial (X.2) difference between a
cinquefoil slipped and leaved and a dandelion plant.
[Chardonne de Lyon, 01/2003,
R-East]
[a dandelion plant vert with three flowers, the centermost in
profile, the outer flowers affronty, Or slipped gules] This
does not conflict with ... Argent, a bulrush slipped and
leaved within a bordure vert. There is substantial (X.2)
difference between these two plants. A bulrush has long thin
spiky leaves and a cylindrical "cattail" head. A dandelion plant
has long wide serrated/spiky leaves and round flowers. The two
are very visually distinct. [Chardonne de Lyon, 01/2003,
R-East]
There is thus substantial difference between "poultry-shaped"
European quails in a period posture (the default close posture)
and "regular-shaped" owls in a period posture (the default close
guardant posture). [Megge de Northwode, 11/2003,
A-Atlantia] [see BIRD -- Owl or
BIRD -- Quail]
There is substantial (RfS X.2) difference between arrows and
crampons. [Diethelm Waltorfer, 12/2003,
A-Ansteorra]

[Per bend sinister purpure and vert, a bend
sinister between a butterfly and three bells one and two Or]
This is clear of conflict with Yusuf Ja'baral-Timbuktuwwi, Per
bend sinister purpure and vert, a bend sinister cotised between
an elephant's head couped close and a decrescent with a mullet
suspended between its horns Or. The cotises, in Yusuf's
device, form a distinct charge group apart from the group
consisting of the elephant's head and decrescent/mullet. "While
cotises and other charges on the field would be considered
separate charge groups on the same armory, they are still
secondary charges and can be compared to other secondary charges.
(LoAR 6/98 p. 17)." In other words, Yusuf's device has two
secondary charge groups: the cotises, and the other charges
around the bend. Comparing Yusuf's device with this submission,
there are three CDs: one for the removal of the cotise group and
two for changing the type and number of the other secondary
group.

It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge
group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend
cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure
gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises are
one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are,
together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a
third secondary charge group (of the type often termed
peripheral). Changing or removing any one of these charge
groups would be a separate CD. Thus, this hypothetical coat of
arms has two CDs from Argent, a bend cotised between two
mullets and a chief gules. There is one CD for changing the
type of half of the secondary group surrounding the cotised bend
(a mullet and a crescent to two mullets) and a second CD for
changing the type of the peripheral secondary group (bordure to
chief). [Admiranda le Daye, 10/2001,
A-Meridies]
[Per fess sable mullety Or and azure, a dance and in base a
sun Or] The device does not conflict with ... Per fess
gules mullety Or, and vert, a dance and in base a terrestrial
sphere Or. There is one CD for the change to the field. There
is another CD for the change in type of the charge group in base,
which is a different charge group from the semy group in chief.
By current precedent, the semy charges must be in a separate
group from all other charges (LoAR 7/2001, Giraude Benet).
[Wolfgang Dracke, 11/2001,
A-Artemisia]
[Per bend sable bezanty and vert, in base a hare rampant
reguardant Or] This does not conflict with Cornwall, Sable
bezanty (important non-SCA arms). There is one CD for the
changing the field. There is a second CD for adding the rabbit,
because the rabbit is not in the same charge group as the
bezants. By current precedent, the semy charges must be in a
separate group from all other charges (LoAR 7/2001, Giraude
Benet). [Rilint Neufang, 11/2001,
A-West]
There is a second CD for changing the tincture of the charge in
base, as the basemost of a group of charges two and one is
considered to be half the group:

After much thought and discussion, it has been decided, for
purposes of X.4.d, e and h of the Rules for Submission, that
the bottommost of three charges, either on the field alone or
around an ordinary, is defined as one-half of the
group...multiple changes to the basemost of three charges under
this definition will be granted a maximum of one CVD. (CL
9/6/90 p.2)

[Letia Thistelthueyt, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[Azure, three crescents one and two horns to center Or]
Conflict with ... Sable, three crescents one and two conjoined
at the horns Or. There is one CD for changing the field.
There is not a CD between a given group of charges conjoined and
another group of charges in the same arrangement which are not
conjoined. [Selim ibn Murad, 12/2001,
R-Atenveldt]
[Azure, a fess argent between a violin fesswise reversed Or
and a phoenix argent issuing from flames proper] Conflict
with ... Azure, a fess argent between two crosses gurgity
Or. There is a CD for changing the type of the secondary
group. However, over half the charge group is Or in Jacquelinne's
arms, since the violin is Or and one quarter of the phoenix is
also Or. By RfS X.4.d, "Changing the tinctures or division of any
group of charges placed directly on the field, including strewn
charges or charges overall, is one clear difference. Changing the
tincture of at least half of the charges in a group is one clear
difference". Therefore, since less than half of the tincture of
the secondary "group of charges placed directly on the field" has
changed, there is not a second CD for tincture changes.
[Jacquelinne Sauvageon, 02/2002, R-Meridies]
[Per bend azure and argent, a mullet argent and a tulip
bendwise azure, slipped and leaved vert] The device does not
conflict with ... Per bend azure and argent, a bear statant
and a mullet of six points counterchanged. The devices are
clear of conflict because (quoting RfS X.2) "the type of every
primary charge has substantially changed", and the armory has "no
more than two types of charge directly on the field". Note that
even though both charge groups use a mullet, the type of every
primary charge has substantially changed. By the following
precedent this is therefore clear by RfS X.2:

[Per chevron argent and sable, two towers and a horse rampant
counterchanged.] Clear of ... Argent, upon a pile inverted
throughout between two ravens sable a tower argent, because
the type of each charge in the group has been substantially
changed, even though each group contains a tower. RfS X.2.
states that: "Simple armory does not conflict with other simple
armory if the type of every primary charge is substantially
changed." Laurel takes this to mean that the type of each
charge must be substantially changed from its corresponding
charge in the armory being compared, not that the type of every
charge must be substantially changed from the type of every
charge in the other armory. (There is no CD for the field,
since we treat per chevron and a pile inverted as equivalent
for purposes of difference.) (LoAR December 1995)

The 1995 precedent stated above was upheld in an
analogous ruling in the LoAR of October 1998. [Tangwystl
Angharad verch Rhys, 08/2002,
A-Outlands]
[Two arrows in saltire surmounted by a double-bitted axe
Or] Conflict with the device of Michael of York, Gules, a
sheaf of three arrows bound by a serpent coiled to sinister
guardant, all Or. ... The arrangement of the charges has not
changed: a sheaf of three arrows consists of two arrows in
saltire surmounted by a third arrow. RfS X.4.e only gives a CD
for changing the type of a group of charges when at least half
the group has changed in type. Here only one-third of the group
has changed in type. The serpent binding the sheaf in Michael's
arms is effectively a maintained charge, and its addition or
deletion is not worth difference. [Conall of Twin Moons,
08/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Vert, three piles in point argent each charged in chief with
a flame azure] Conflict with ... Azure, three piles in
point argent each charged in chief with a key palewise wards to
base azure. There is a CD for changing the tincture of the
field. RfS X.4.j.ii.a states that "armory that has a group of
identical charges on an ordinary or other suitable charge alone
on the field is a simple case." No clause of RfS X.4.j.ii
considers armory using multiple charged primary charges to be a
simple case. Therefore there is no difference for changing the
type only of tertiary charge by X.4.j.ii.

The outer piles issue mostly from the chief, but slightly from
the sides of the shield as well. This is a standard period
depiction of three piles in point, and is acceptable. [Mary
Dedwydd verch Gwallter, 09/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per fess dovetailed azure and argent, three mullets argent
and a wolf's head erased sable] The device does not conflict
with a ... Per fess embattled azure and argent, two mullets of
four points and a comet fesswise, head to sinister,
counterchanged. There is one CD for changing the number of
the charges in the group. There is a second CD for changing the
type and tincture of the primary charge(s) on one side of the
line of division, even though that portion of the primary group
is only one quarter of the group, per the following precedent
from the November 1995 LoAR:

There is ... a CD for the change to the field and another for
changing the type and tincture of the primary charge group on
one side of the line of division, even though numerically this
is not "one half" of the primary charge group. For a fuller
discussion of this precedent granting a CD for two changes to
charges on one side of a line of division even when less than
half the charge group is affected, see the December 21, 1991
Cover Letter (with the November 1991 LoAR).

This situation arises very rarely aside from the
well-known situation concerning the bottommost of a group of
three charges two and one, which has its own different set of
controlling precedents. The cited precedent appears to have
remained in force; the registration history shows that this
precedent has neither been overruled nor passively ignored.
[Cassandra of Standing Stones, 01/2003,
A-Calontir]
[Per bend argent and sable, a hound rampant and a hound
rampant contourny counterchanged] This does not conflict with
Matthew de Wolfe, Per bend sinister embattled argent and
sable, in bend two wolves rampant combattant counterchanged.
To understand why there is no conflict, it is helpful to remove
all blazon shortcuts and blazon each of these pieces of armory
explicitly. Note that there are two important common blazon
shortcuts which are found in both Matheus' and Matthew's current
blazons. The first blazon shortcut is that two charges on a
divided field are placed on opposite sides of a line of division
by default. The other blazon shortcut is the use of the word
counterchanged rather than using the tinctures
argent and sable.

Thus, when we remove blazon shortcuts, Matheus' arms may be
blazoned Per bend argent and sable, in sinister chief a hound
rampant sable and in dexter base a hound rampant to sinister
argent. Matthew's arms may be blazoned Per bend sinister
embattled argent and sable, in dexter chief a wolf rampant to
sinister sable and in sinister base a wolf rampant
argent.

Precedent has consistently held that "you cannot 'blazon your way
out of' a conflict" (stated succinctly in this quote from the
LoAR of February 2000, which upheld years of previous precedent).
Thus, we must compare these two pieces of armory using the
"explicit" blazons. There is one CD for changing the field. There
is no difference for changing the type of canine from wolf to
hound.

The charges may not lie on a portion of the field with which they
have no contrast. Matheus' charges could not be arranged like
Matthew's (with the sable charge in dexter chief and the
argent charge in sinister base) on a per bend argent
and sable field, because each charge would have no contrast
with half of the field on which it lies. The charges must change
their arrangement. Because this change in arrangement is "caused
by other changes to the design" (namely, the changes to the
field) it is not worth difference per RfS X.4.g for arrangement
changes. (This is often known as a "forced" arrangement change or
"forced" position change.)

The second CD comes from the change of posture. Each canine is
facing in the opposite direction from the corresponding canine in
the other coat. This posture change is a CD by RfS X.4.h.

By this analysis we are expressly overturning the precedent set
in January 1994 that stated in pertinent part:

[Per pale and per chevron argent and sable, in chief two
<charges> counterchanged vs. Huffam, Per bend sable and
argent, two <charges> counterchanged ] Because the
charges are counterchanged, they could legitimately be placed
anywhere on the field, even over the line(s) of division. As a
consequence, the change in position of the <charges>
cannot be considered to be "forced" by the field division
(though in Huffam they are in the expected position, one on
either side of the line of division), thus giving a CD for
position on the field

By this precedent, the use of the word
counterchanged would remove a conflict which would apply
if the tinctures of the charges were explicitly sable and
argent, which is contrary to long-standing SCA policy.
[Matheus of Coppertree, 02/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Or, in pale a wyvern passant sable and another gules]
This is not in conflict with Drachenwald's Company of Archers,
Or, in pale a dragon passant coward sable and two arrows in
saltire gules. There is one CD for changing half the type of
the primary charge group. There are three charges in
Drachenwald's armory: one dragon and two arrows. Thus, there is a
second CD for changing the number of primary charges from three
to two. [Robert MacMahon, 04/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[On a rose argent barbed vert a cat sejant affronty sable]
This does not conflict with the badge of Martin Luther,
(Fieldless) A rose argent seeded of a heart gules charged with
a Latin cross sable. There is one CD for fieldlessness. There
is a second CD for changing the type and tincture of tertiary
charge (from a black cat to a red heart). There is no additional
difference for removal of the quaternary charge (the black cross
on the red heart), as we do not give difference for addition,
removal, or changes to quaternary charges. [Laurin of
Rosewood, 06/2003,
R-An Tir]
[Vert, two arrows inverted in saltire Or surmounted by a tower
argent] Conflict with ... Vert, two swords in saltire Or
surmounted by a stone tower, the top enflamed, proper. Both
pieces of armory are effectively a single group (a sheaf) of
three charges. The only change to the group of three charges is
the change to two-thirds of the type of the charge group (swords
to arrows), which is one CD by RfS X.4.e. As an alternate
interpretation, if we consider the arrows and swords to be
respective primary charge groups, and the overall towers to be
respective overall charge groups, armory using an overall charge
is not eligible for RfS X.2 because it is not simple: "For
purposes of [RfS X.2], simple armory is defined as armory that
has no more than two types of charge directly on the field and
has no overall charges". Thus, there is one CD for changing the
type of primary charges (from arrows to swords) but no further
difference. [Nikolai of Trakai, 06/2003,
R-Middle]
Quoting from the LoAR of June 2001, "A sheaf is considered a
single charge, therefore there is [... a] CD for changing the
type of the secondary charges." Here, we have changed the type
but not the number of secondary charges: we have changed two open
books to an arrow-sheaf and a tulip-sheaf. [Bjorn Krom
Hakenberg, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[Per chevron inverted azure and sable, a cinquefoil Or and two
arrows inverted in chevron inverted argent] This is clear of
conflict with ... Per chevron inverted ployé throughout argent
and azure, a mullet of eight points and two arrows inverted in
pile counterchanged. There is no difference between two
arrows inverted in chevron inverted and two arrows
inverted in pile. Per the November 1995 LoAR, "There is ... a
CD for the change to the field and another for changing the type
and tincture of the primary charge group on one side of the line
of division, even though numerically this is not 'one half' of
the primary charge group. For a fuller discussion of this
precedent granting a CD for two changes to charges on one side of
a line of division even when less than half the charge group is
affected, see the December 21, 1991 Cover Letter (with the
November 1991 LoAR)." There is thus one CD for changing the
field, and a second CD for changing the type and tincture of the
portion of the primary group that lies on the chiefmost side of
the line of division (from a mullet of eight points azure to a
cinquefoil Or).

Note that the precedent quoted above refers to fields that are
split into two pieces by a single line of division. Thus, that
precedent pertains to this armorial comparison, where both fields
are split in two by a single, per chevron inverted, line of
division. However, the 1995 precedent does not apply to field
divisions that split the field into more than two pieces, such as
quarterly, per saltire, or per pall. The submitting kingdom
quoted a precedent in the Letter of Intent from September 1999.
Because the 1999 ruling addresses a per pall field, which is not
addressed by the 1995 precedent, the 1999 precedent neither
supports nor overturns the 1995 precedent cited above: "[Per pall
sable, vert and argent, in pale two swords crossed in saltire
argent and a cat's paw print counterchanged.] Conflict with ...
Per fess embattled vert and argent, in pale two swords in saltire
and a compass star counterchanged. There is one CD for the
changes to the field, but none for change in type and tincture
for only one of three of the primary charges (as they are not
arranged two and one)" (LoAR September 1999). [Adelheidis
Spätauf, 09/2003,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Quarterly argent and azure, two lymphads sails unfurled
azure] Conflict with ... Quarterly argent and azure, four
dhows reversed counterchanged. As noted in the LoAR of July
2001, "There is ... nothing for the change in the type of ship,
[or] for reversing a ship." There is one CD for removing the two
argent ships, but no other difference may be obtained from this
change. One cannot argue, as was done on the Letter of Intent,
that "there is a CD for the number of charges, and a CD for
changing color of half the primary charges." That is equivalent
to saying that there is a CD for removing two of the charges, and
another CD for the changing the tincture of the charges that have
just been removed. The rules have been interpreted consistently
for years, and the following discussion from the LoAR of July
1992 still applies:

One cannot get a CD for adding charges, then another CD for
changing the charges just added. This has been an underlying
principle of the last three sets of Rules: see the LoAR of 25
Aug 85, p.14, for a full discussion. The difference obtained
for adding, say, a bordure engrailed ermine, is exactly the
same as for adding a bordure Or. (One does not get a CD for
adding the bordure, then a CD for changing its tincture, then
another CD for making it engrailed.....)

[Jan van Antwerpen, 10/2003,
R-East]
[Gules, on a cross quarter-pierced Or four eagles sable]
Conflict with ... Gules, on a cross Or five ladybugs gules
marked sable. Per the LoAR of February 2000, "you cannot
'blazon your way out of' a conflict." A cross quarter-pierced may
also be blazoned as a cross charged with a delf
throughout. As a result, one can blazon this submission as
Gules on a cross Or a delf throughout gules between four
eagles sable. RfS X.4.j.i states that "Generally ... changes
must affect the whole group of charges to be considered visually
significant, since the size of these elements and their visual
impact are considerably diminished." In this case, because the
change of tincture of four-fifths of the charges, and the change
of the type of all the charges is so significant, one CD is
allowed for the changes to the tertiary charge group under RfS
X.4.j.i. However, a second CD is required. [Orban von Ulm,
10/2003,
R-Meridies]
... no difference for changing the type or tincture of the
centermost of three co-primary charges in fess. [Zoe
Amaranta, 12/2003,
R-Artemisia]
[Azure, a bend argent cotised between a lion rampant and a
castle Or] The device submission is an appeal of the return
of the device also in the February 2003 LoAR, which explained:

The device conflicts with the important non-SCA arms of Bohun,
Earl of Hereford, Constable of England, Azure, a bend argent
cotised between six lions rampant Or. There is no
difference for changing the type of one of a group of six
lions, leaving only one CD for changing the number of secondary
charges.

The appeal of the device return is based on
interpretation of RfS X.4.e (types) and X.4.f (number) of
secondaries. The appeal incorrectly considered the secondaries
and changes to the make up of the charge groups. During the
commentary on this appeal, it became evident that some
misconceptions concerning how to determine secondary charge
groups and what changes to these groups apply.

The appeal did not consider the cotises in the discussion of the
secondary charge groups. There was confusion and disagreement in
the commentary regarding whether the cotises are a separate
charge group giving two secondary charge groups, or are included
with the lion and castle and thus a single group of secondary
charges. The cotises are a separate secondary group as is
explained well in the following precedent from October 2001:

[Per bend sinister purpure and vert, a bend sinister between
a butterfly and three bells one and two Or] This is clear
of conflict with Yusuf Ja'baral-Timbuktuwwi, Per bend
sinister purpure and vert, a bend sinister cotised between an
elephant's head couped close and a decrescent with a mullet
suspended between its horns Or. The cotises, in Yusuf's
device, form a distinct charge group apart from the group
consisting of the elephant's head and decrescent/mullet. "While
cotises and other charges on the field would be considered
separate charge groups on the same armory, they are still
secondary charges and can be compared to other secondary
charges. (LoAR 6/98 p. 17)." In other words, Yusuf's device has
two secondary charge groups: the cotises, and the other charges
around the bend. Comparing Yusuf's device with this submission,
there are three CDs: one for the removal of the cotise group
and two for changing the type and number of the other secondary
group.

It is certainly possible to have more than one
secondary charge group on the field. In the hypothetical arms
Argent, a bend cotised between a mullet and a crescent all
within a bordure gules, the primary charge group is the bend,
the cotises are one secondary charge group, the mullet and
crescent are, together, a second secondary charge group, and the
bordure is a third secondary charge group (of the type often
termed peripheral). Changing or removing any one of these
charge groups would be a separate CD. Thus, this hypothetical
coat of arms has two CDs from Argent, a bend cotised between
two mullets and a chief gules. There is one CD for changing
the type of half of the secondary group surrounding the cotised
bend (a mullet and a crescent to two mullets) and a second CD for
changing the type of the peripheral secondary group (bordure to
chief).

With the clarification on cotises we now compare the appeal with
the existing (already protected) armory: Bohun, Earl of Hereford,
Constable of England, Azure, a bend argent cotised between six
lions rampant Or, which is composed of a field azure and
three charge groups: primary (the bend argent), secondary group 1
(set of cotises Or), secondary group 2 (six lions rampant
Or).

The new armory under submission (Siridean): Azure, a bend
argent cotised between a lion rampant and a castle Or is
composed of a field azure and three charge groups: primary (the
bend argent), secondary group 1 (set of cotises Or), secondary
group 2 (a lion rampant and a castle Or).

The two devices have in common the field, the primary, and one of
the secondary charge groups (the cotises). The only change
between these two pieces of armory involves secondary group 2.
Siridean's device compared to the Bohun armory has changed from a
group of six lions rampant Or to a group of a lion
rampant and a castle Or. Therefore, the only differences
between the Bohun arms and Siridean's device is in the type and
number of charges in this secondary charge group.

The rules that apply to the changing of the type and number of
secondary charge group 2 are RfS X.4.e (type) and X.4.f (number).
X.4.e states "Type Changes - Significantly changing the type of
any group of charges placed directly on the field, including
strewn charges or charges overall, is one clear difference...
Changing the type of at least half of the charges in a group is
one clear difference." X.4.f provides "Significantly changing the
number of charges in any group placed directly on the field or
overall is one clear difference." This rule does not have any
restriction on "half" the group such as is found in X.4.e.

The SCA has always had difficulty dealing with the situation when
both the number and the type of a single charge group change. For
a classic example, consider the hypothetical arms Azure, a
lion Or and a unicorn argent combattant versus Azure, a
unicorn argent. In both cases, you have a blue field with a
white rampant unicorn. In the first, the unicorn is also
accompanied by a gold lion rampant to sinister. The traditional
SCA view is to give only one CD for removing the lion so that the
two arms are in conflict. However, occasionally, someone tries to
argue from a different perspective, namely, that we should give
one CD for changing the number of the group (from two to one
charge), another CD for changing the type of the group (from half
unicorn, half lion to all unicorn), a third CD for changing the
tincture of the group (from half Or, half argent, to all argent),
and a fourth for changing the posture of the group (from half
facing dexter and half facing sinister, to all facing dexter).
This, of course, would make the arms well clear of conflict. This
interpretation has been disallowed fairly consistently in
precedent, although the issue continues to be raised
occasionally. The most recent time this issue was addressed was
in the LoAR of October 2003, which stated:

Jan van Antwerpen. Device. Quarterly argent and azure, two
lymphads sails unfurled azure Conflict with Lee Sharpeyes,
Quarterly argent and azure, four dhows reversed
counterchanged. As noted in the LoAR of July 2001, "There
is ... nothing for the change in the type of ship, [or] for
reversing a ship." There is one CD for removing the two argent
ships, but no other difference may be obtained from this
change. One cannot argue, as was done on the Letter of Intent,
that "there is a CD for the number of charges, and a CD for
changing color of half the primary charges." That is equivalent
to saying that there is a CD for removing two of the charges,
and another CD for the changing the tincture of the charges
that have just been removed. The rules have been interpreted
consistently for years, and the following discussion from the
LoAR of July 1992 still applies:

One cannot get a CD for adding charges, then another CD for
changing the charges just added. This has been an underlying
principle of the last three sets of Rules: see the LoAR of 25
Aug 85, p.14, for a full discussion. The difference obtained
for adding, say, a bordure engrailed ermine, is exactly the
same as for adding a bordure Or. (One does not get a CD for
adding the bordure, then a CD for changing its tincture, then
another CD for making it engrailed.....)

In the 1985 LoAR cited in this return, Laurel noted:

We have held previously that the addition of a modified charge
(such as a roundel engrailed ermine) contributes no more
difference than adding an unmodified charge (e.g. a roundel
gules). This gets us away from absurdities such as the
following: to "Azure, a fleurdelys [sic] Or" we add two bars Or
and a bordure argent. We engrail the bordure, change the bars
from Or to argent, and then delete the bordure. Depending on
how creative you are at counting, you could get anywhere from
two to five points for the addition of a pair of silver
stripes. Not bad for a couple of minutes' work ...

In addition, it should be recalled that the SCA
protects REGISTERED armory. Because of this, the SCA
considers changes to have been made from the registered armory to
the armory currently under submission, and has interpreted the
Rules for Submission in the manner that gives the greatest
protection to the registered armory, and allows the fewest
possible differences for a change to armory. This implies a
certain lack of symmetry to the ruling, because the
interpretation of a change from "registered" to "considered" does
not necessarily match the change from "considered" to
"registered". The February 2003 ruling on Siridean's device
applied type first (no type difference) and then number (removing
four lions). If we were going from "considered" to "registered",
we could arguably give a CD for changing from a lion and a castle
to two lions (half the group has changed, and is entitled to a
CD) and then give a CD for adding four lions, giving two CDs. But
this is not the situation under consideration in this appeal.

In Siridean's case, the submitter is changing one of the lions
into a castle, which leaves us with a charge group consisting of
five lions and one castle. This change is to less than half of
the charges in that group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.e.

After the change of the type (a lion into a castle), we apply the
change to the number by removing all but one of the lions and the
castle. Of six charges, we remove four of the lions, leaving a
total of two charges in the group, which is a change from six to
two. RfS X.4.f notes that two and six are signficantly different,
and therefore, entitled to a CD.

After applying the change of type and then the change in number,
the submitted armory has but a single CD from Bohun, Earl of
Hereford, Constable of England, Azure, a bend argent cotised
between six lions rampant Or. The device appeal is denied.
[Siridean MacLachlan, 12/2003,R-Calontir]
[Sable, a chevron cotised argent between three oak leaves
Or] This does not conflict with ... Sable, a chevron
argent cotised between three compass stars elongated to base
Or. There is one CD for changing the tincture of one of the
secondary charge groups (the cotises) and a second CD for
changing the type of the other secondary charge group (from
compass stars to oak leaves.) The cotises are a separate set of
secondary charges by a number of precedents:

It is certainly possible to have more than one secondary charge
group on the field. In the hypothetical arms Argent, a bend
cotised between a mullet and a crescent all within a bordure
gules, the primary charge group is the bend, the cotises
are one secondary charge group, the mullet and crescent are,
together, a second secondary charge group, and the bordure is a
third secondary charge group (of the type often termed
peripheral). (LoAR of October 2001)

[Argent, on a fess cotised embattled on the outer edges
between three leopard's faces sable three crescents argent]
This is clear of the flag of Meridies, Argent, on a fess
sable, a crown of three points between two mullets argent,
with one CD for the removal of the cotises and a second for the
removal of the leopard's faces as they are two different charge
groups (LoAR of March 2001)

The cotises are clearly a second group of secondary charges so
that an additional point of difference can be obtained from
adding them (LoAR of 27 November 1988, p.12)

[Melisant Saint-Clair, 02/2004,
A-Atlantia]
[Gules, in fess a tassel Or between a decrescent and an
increscent argent] Conflict with a badge of Conrad von
Regensburg, Gules semy of decrescents argent. In Conrad's
arms, there is a single group of primary charges consisting of
(six or more) evenly strewn argent decrescents. In Dyan's arms,
there is a single group of primary charges consisting of one
argent decrescent, an Or tassel, and an argent increscent. The
LoAR of December 2003 gave a lengthy analysis of the way to count
difference in a similar situation, where the charge group changed
from a registered group of charges on the field consisting of
six lions Or, to an in-submission charge group consisting
of a lion and a tower Or. That analysis summarized the
change as follows:

It should be recalled that the SCA protects REGISTERED armory.
Because of this, the SCA considers changes to have been made
from the registered armory to the armory currently under
submission, and has interpreted the Rules for Submission in the
manner that gives the greatest protection to the registered
armory, and allows the fewest possible differences for a change
to armory. This implies a certain lack of symmetry to the
ruling, because the interpretation of a change from
"registered" to "considered" does not necessarily match the
change from "considered" to "registered"...

In [this] case, the submitter is changing one of the lions into
a castle, which leaves us with a charge group consisting of
five lions and one castle. This change is to less than half of
the charges in that group, so there is no CD under RfS
X.4.e.

After the change of the type (a lion into a castle), we apply
the change to the number by removing all but one of the lions
and the castle. Of six charges, we remove four of the lions,
leaving a total of two charges in the group, which is a change
from six to two. RfS X.4.f notes that two and six are
signficantly different, and therefore, entitled to a CD.

In this case, we have changed the charge group on
the field from [semy of] decrescents argent to a
decrescent argent, an increscent argent, and a tassel Or. The
strewn ("semy") charges are considered to be equivalent to any
charge group with six or more charges for purposes of the rule
for difference in the number of charges on the field (RfS
X.4.f).

Thus, when changing Conrad's badge to Dyan's, we are changing one
of the (six or more) argent decrescents into an argent
increscent, and one of the (six or more) argent decrescents into
an Or tassel, and leaving (four or more) of the argent
decrescents as argent decrescents. The change in type of two of
six (or more) charges (the single tassel and the single
increscent) is a change to less than half of the charges in the
group, so there is no CD under RfS X.4.e. The change in tincture
to one in six (or more) charges (the tassel) is also a change to
less than half the charges in the group, so there is no CD under
RfS X.4.d.

After the changes to type and tincture (six or more decrescents
argent into four or more decrescents argent, one increscent
argent, and one tassel Or), we then remove (three or more) of the
decrescents, leaving a total of three charges, which is a change
from six (or more) charges to three charges. RfS X.4.f notes that
three and six are significantly different, and therefore entitled
to a CD.

As a result, there is only one CD between these two pieces of
armory, and they are therefore in conflict. [Dyan du Lac des
Calandres, 03/2004,
R-Ansteorra]

DOCUMENTATIONSee individual charges for instances when Wreath required
additional documentation for defining instances of charges or
accepted such documentation.

The Laurel office requires
that each copy of a submission form have its own separate copy of
the documentation that goes with it. A form + its associated
documentation is an indivisible set. For a name, that's the
long-standing practice: the Laurel office receives one name form
and one set of documentation. An armory submission has two
colored copies of the submission form, so if it requires any
documentation, we will require two copies of the documentation as
well. ... In particular, in SCA branch submissions which require
petitions, please include one copy of the petition for each name
or armory form sent to Laurel. (So, for a branch name and device,
that's three copies of the petition). This ensures that there's a
form for each decision-making sovereign of arms, and for the
files, while being a simple rule to remember. [08/2001,
CL]
One must be careful about relying too heavily on Foster's redrawn
emblazons. A design found only in Foster's artwork will generally
not be considered sufficient documentation to be accepted in the
SCA, as noted in the return of Séamus Ó Cuileáin's device in the
LoAR of December 1998. [Gregory of Glencairn, 05/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
From Laurel: Laurel Does Not Know It All
We have all seen instances when a submission was returned that
was documented from a previously accepted submission - the old
standard phrase is "Past registration does not ensure future
registration." We are hopefully continuing to learn and this
moving target can sometimes cause a name or device to be returned
even just a month after a similar submission was accepted. A few
weeks ago there was a discussion concerning the reply to a "But
Laurel said ..." argument. The best summary of the situation
comes from Tangwystyl verch Morgant Glasvryn:

One should always read any decision by Laurel as being prefixed
by "Based on the available knowledge, research, and analysis
available to us at this time, it is our understanding that
..."

Many heralds (on all levels of the hierarchy) often forget this
and word statements of current knowledge as if they were
Absolute Truth, but there's still an onus on the listener as
well to insert the disclaimer.

We require your help to know "the truth". The
current knowledge is extended by the research of the College of
Arms, the College of Heralds, and the submitters. Any
documentation provided on a submission, whether it is from the
submitter, the Kingdom College of Heralds, or the College of Arms
commenters, goes a long way to helping us all learn. If you
provide "the truth" in your commentary and submissions work, that
leads to better recreation and we all benefit from the latest
best attempt at determining "the truth". [04/2003,
CL]

DOCUMENTED
EXCEPTION

[Azure, a cubit arm proper maintaining a
crescent argent issuant from a comital coronet Or jewelled gules,
all issuant from a trimount vert and all between two crescents
argent] This submission uses a vert trimount on an azure
field, which violates RfS VIII.2 on armorial contrast. The
submission was sent to Laurel under RfS VIII.6.a, the "Documented
Exceptions" subclause concerning "General Exceptions". See this
month's submission for Kathws Rusa, also in the Outlands, for
more discussion concerning the precedent and requirements for
such a documented exception to be acceptable. [Ed.: See next
entry] The summary paragraph of the pertinent ruling from the
cover letter of the first December 1993 LoAR is as follows:

In other words, any future submission requesting an exception
to any of the Rules for Submission must be documented (1) by
multiple period examples, (2) from a number of heraldic
jurisdictions, (3) in the exact form of the proposed armory,
(4) of comparable simplicity and style as the proposed armory,
(5) which apply only to that submission. We do not believe
these restrictions to be too onerous, and hope that, if
anything, they will stimulate our submitters to do some
research on their own.

As documentation for this submission, we have been
provided with an article "Materials in support of the case for
the trimount", assembled by Erasimierz Waspanieski as
documentation for the December 1993 submission.

The provided documentation supports some, but not all, of the
design elements present in this submission. On resubmission, if
the submitter wishes to continue to pursue the documented
exception, the submitter should be careful to preserve the
elements which are compatible with the poor-contrast trimount,
and should not introduce elements which are not compatible with
the poor-contrast trimount.

The general design of a vert trimount on an azure field is
acceptable as long as the rest of the armory is "of comparable
simplicity and style" as "multiple period examples" of armory
using a vert trimount on an azure field.

The general concept of an arm issuant from the trimount is
compatible with the presented designs. The majority of the
designs have some charge or charges issuant from the trimount,
and some examples explicitly use an arm as a charge. While we do
not have many examples of items issuing from crowns in the
examples provided in the documentation, more examples were
adduced by the College of Arms, and it appears to be a relatively
standard practice.

Some of the provided examples show arms holding an item in
conjunction with a crown issuant from the trimount, although the
examples so presented have a notably different design. The arm is
fesswise and embowed, so that its elbow issues from the crown. In
this submission, the base of the cubit arm issues from the crown.
The design in the period examples helps the identifiability of
the crown, as at least half the crown rests against the
(high-contrast) field. In the current design there is significant
overlap between the crown and the (low-contrast) arm. The College
was uncertain whether this design of a cubit arm, holding an
object, issuant from a crown, which was itself issuant from a
trimount, with contrast difficulties between the crown and the
arm as well as between the trimount and the field, was compatible
with period style. Documentation for this particular design
should be provided if it continues to be used in a
resubmission.

The College also had some concerns about the fact that the charge
grasped by the arm appeared to be in the same charge group as the
surrounding charges, as the grasped charge shares type, tincture
and size with the surrounding charges. No documentation was
provided for this design, so we also request that documentation
for this particular design should be provided if it continues to
be used in a resubmission. [Ileana Welgy, 11/2002,
R-Outlands]
[Azure, two arrows inverted in saltire argent between three
bezants one and two and a trimount vert] This submission uses
a vert trimount on an azure field, which violates RfS VIII.2 on
armorial contrast. The submission is sent up under RfS VIII.6.a,
the "Documented Exceptions" subclause concerning "General
Exceptions". The particular case of a vert trimount on an azure
field was considered in the first December 1993 LoAR (there were
two December meetings that year). The device, Azure, a
demi-wolf contourny argent, issuant from a trimount proper,
vorant a vol Or, was accepted. The Cover Letter to that LoAR
stated:

I believe the standards proposed by Master Bruce in his
thoughts on this submission are the ones to be applied to
submissions requesting an exception to any of our Rules in the
future.

The documentation must consist of multiple examples, not two
or three but at least a dozen, and not limited to a single
heraldic regime, but be from across Europe. The examples must
be of the exact form used in the submission: if the submitter
wants a green trimount on blue, that's what must be
documented -- and that documentation cannot then be used as
an argument for, say, a green fess on blue. The examples must
be of comparable simplicity and style as the submission. And
finally, even if the evidence is accepted, it only applies to
the item at hand.

In other words, any future submission requesting
an exception to any of the Rules for Submission must be
documented (1) by multiple period examples, (2) from a number
of heraldic jurisdictions, (3) in the exact form of the
proposed armory, (4) of comparable simplicity and style as the
proposed armory, (5) which apply only to that submission. We do
not believe these restrictions to be too onerous, and hope
that, if anything, they will stimulate our submitters to do
some research on their own.

As documentation for this submission, we have been
provided with an article "Materials in support of the case for
the trimount", assembled by Erasimierz Waspanieski as
documentation for the December 1993 submission.

The documentation presented adduces 47 possible examples of poor
contrast mounts or trimounts in period armory across Europe. The
poor contrast was either on the entire coat or on a separable
quarter or half of a marshalled coat. (There were 48 examples in
the article, but one was not on a poor contrast field: the field
was per pale argent and azure.)

The provided documentation does a good job of documenting the
specific practice of a green trimount on an azure field, so that
the exception is indeed "in the exact form of the proposed
armory". The particular color combination of green mount or
trimount on blue is found in almost half of the examples. Most of
those examples explicitly used trimounts.

However, the documentation does not demonstrate that this armory
is or "of comparable simplicity and style as the proposed
armory." In the 47 examples in the article, 42 of the examples
showed at least one of the charges on the armory issuing from or
resting atop the poor-contrast trimount. This is a very strong
stylistic trend. This trend may be due to the fact that such a
design helps lessen the visual problems of a poor-contrast
peripheral charge. Having one or more other charges resting atop
or issuant from the poor-contrast peripheral charge helps attract
attention to the fact that the peripheral charge is present on
the armory. The trend may also be due to the fact that the
documentation was originally assembled to support a submission
where the primary charge issued from a trimount. Unfortunately,
the Laurel office does not have the resources to research whether
the provided documentation is representative of all poor-contrast
trimounts, or if the documentation is skewed towards supporting
the original submission. While the Laurel office does as much
research as it can, the burden of providing demonstrating
supporting materials is primarily on the submitter.

Of the five examples in the documentation in which the charges on
the armory were all disconnected from the poor-contrast trimount,
four were not "of comparable simplicity and style as the proposed
armory." Two examples included a fess, and this submission does
not use an ordinary. Two examples used only a single primary
charge with the trimount, and this submission has a primary
charge group and a surrounding secondary charge group with the
trimount. There is explicit precedent stating that designs using
ordinaries may not be used as support for a documented exception
which does not use an ordinary, and that designs using a single
primary charge may not be used as support for a documented
exception which uses a primary charge surrounded by secondary
charges:

[Gules, a bear passant sable between three mullets of six
points Or] The submitter asked that this be registered
under RfS VIII.6, Documented Exceptions. She included numerous
examples of sable charges on gules from different areas of
Europe. While there was enough evidence given to support
Gules, a bear passant sable ... the only examples the
submitter presented of a low contrast charge between high
contrast secondaries the central charge was an ordinary. As
ordinaries have a different level of complexity from an animate
charge, we cannot consider their examples as sufficient. None
of the examples present showed the case Gules, <an
animate charge> sable between <charges> Or (or
argent). The Documented Exceptions rule is by nature very
conservative; one needs multiple examples of very similar
patterns to allow extrapolations. Therefore, we must return the
device. (LoAR of March 2000)

This left only one example which is arguably of
"comparable simplicity and style as the proposed armory", which
was the family of Bentivoglia (in Venice), Azure, an arrow
between two others in chevron all inverted argent, between in
chief a delf gules, and a trimount proper. This single
example is not sufficient to support the documented exception.
[Kathws Rusa, 11/2002,
R-Outlands]
[Azure, an equal-armed Celtic cross formy Or issuant from a
mount vert] This submission uses a vert mount on an azure
field, which violates RfS VIII.2 on armorial contrast. The
submission was sent to Laurel under RfS VIII.6.a, the "Documented
Exceptions" subclause concerning "General Exceptions". See the
November 2002 LoAR for Kathws Rusa and Ileana Welgy, both in the
Outlands returns section, for more discussion concerning
requirements for such a documented exception to be acceptable.
[Ed.: The returns are included above, in this
section.]

As documentation for this submission, we have been provided with
an article "Materials in support of the case for the trimount",
assembled by Erasimierz Waspanieski as documentation for a
December 1993 submission. The documentation does a good job of
documenting the specific practice of a green mount on an azure
field, so that the exception is indeed "in the exact form of the
proposed armory". The particular color combination of green mount
or trimount on blue is found in almost half of the examples.
While most of the examples are of trimounts, there are enough
mounts to demonstrate this exact form.

As for overall armorial design, this piece of armory follows a
general design of armory using a green mount or trimount on a
color field, with a single charge atop or issuing from the mount
or trimount, and no other charges in the armory. The
documentation does a good job of demonstrating that this design
is found throughout Europe in period. The article provides
thirteen examples with this design. The thirteen examples include
many types of charge atop/issuing from the trimount: animate
charges, constructed artifact charges (like a crown), and
abstract heraldic charges like crosses and mullets. Two examples
specifically use crosses. This is sufficient evidence to support
this submission's design as compatible with a documented
exception.

Some commenters asked whether this submission might have "too
many weirdnesses" to be acceptable. A "weirdness", according to
the Glossary of Terms, is a "break with the usual period style
provided that it is not overly obtrusive". While the use of a
Celtic cross in heraldry may be an SCA innovation, it is not
considered a weirdness, as similarly constructed crosses are
found in period heraldry. It is a reasonable extension of
practices found in period heraldry rather than a "break with the
usual period style." Any documented exception, by definition, is
a period practice, otherwise it could not have been documented.
Hence, this submission has no weirdnesses. [Aindrea Mac
Parthaláin, 01/2003,
A-Outlands]
[Per pale paly of four Or and sable, and Or, in sinister a
dragon gules] This has the appearance of marshalled armory,
impaling the coat Paly of four Or and sable and Or a
dragon gules. RfS XI.3 states, "Armory that appears to
marshall independent arms is considered presumptuous" (emphasis
added). The appearance of marshalling is so strong in this design
that it would be considered presumptuous, even if a few examples
of armory of this design were found that could clearly be
demonstrated not to be marshalled.

The submitter provided documentation showing some pieces of
German heraldry that the submitter felt showed analogous heraldic
designs without the implication of marshalling. However, three of
the six pieces of armory in the documentation used bars on the
upper or lower part of the field, rather than pallets on the
dexter or sinister side of the field. Marshalling by impalement
(with two coats of arms side by side) is not uncommon in period
heraldry, but marshalling by "imfessment" (with one coat of arms
over the other) is not common enough for the SCA to consider such
a design to give the appearance of marshalling. So the examples
using bars are not analogous to this submission, as they do not
give an appearance of marshalling by impalement. One of the six
examples showed a pale counterchanged in the center of the field
(overlying a per pale line of division) between two unlike
charges. This design also does not resemble two coats of arms set
side by side, and thus does not have a possible appearance of
marshalling by impalement.

The final two pieces of armory provided by the submitter are
analogous to this submission in their design. However, the
documentation did not demonstrate that these German coats were
not themselves marshalled arms. Some similarly designed armory in
Germany is known to depict marshalled arms. According to Jiri
Louda's European Civic Coats of Arms, the arms of the city
of Leipzig (unchanged since 1470), which have Or a lion
rampant sable to dexter and Or, two pallets azure to
sinister, "bear the Lion of Meissen and Landsberg pallets."
The arms of the city of Dresden, identical to those of Leipzig
except with sable pallets, are described in the same source as
follows: "The early 14th century arms show a black lion, the
armorial device of Meissen; the black pallets were originally
blue Landsberg pallets later altered to the colours of Saxony."
These civic arms show that in some cases of German arms with this
design, two coats of arms were indeed combined side by side to
make the resultant coat. [Ludwig Grün, 05/2003,
R-Meridies]

[concerning internal detailing] Over the
last months, we have seen an increasing number of submissions
where a complex charge (such as an animal) is drawn without any
internal details. The members of the College have been quick to
point out that this can lead to difficulties in identifying the
charge. They are, of course, correct, and it is probably for this
reason that most period depictions of complex charges have some
internal details. However, not all period heraldic art has
internal details, and such silhouette depictions are
acceptable in the SCA as long as identifiability is
preserved.

The most identifiable postures for animals are those which are
commonly used for the animal being depicted, and which show the
distinguishing aspects of the animal to their best advantage. A
rampant lion has the profile of the head, all four limbs, and the
tail all laying directly on the field. A displayed eagle has the
profile of the head, both wings, both legs, and the tail all
lying directly on the field. Because we are accustomed to seeing
rampant quadrupeds and displayed eagles, and because almost every
part of these animals is outlined against the field, these
animals can generally be identified with little or no internal
details.

Any posture that obscures some limbs (such as sejant), or which
does not show the profile of the head (such as guardant) should
generally be drawn with some internal details. So should any
charge in an uncommon or confusing posture, like a lion sejant
erect affronty, or an escallop fesswise. Any charge whose outline
identifiability is compromised by some other portion of the
design, such as a partially low-contrast field or an overall
charge, will benefit from some internal details.

While on this topic, I would also like to remind people that a
charge can also suffer from too many internal details. In
some cases, we receive artwork that is based on a
photo-enlargement of a heavily shaded or cross-hatched black and
white original. In these cases, the black details can almost
overpower the real tincture of the charge. In other cases, we
have a charge with a complicated tincture (such as ermine or
checky), or which is charged with a tertiary charge. In these
cases, the internal details can interfere with the
identifiability of the complicated tincture or tertiary, and
should be used with restraint. [08/2001,
CL]
[three mice dormant] This is a good example of
identifiable dormant, since the mouse heads with their
identifying ears are largely against the high contrast field,
rather than the low contrast mouse bodies. [Gwenddolynn ni
hAilleachaín, 10/2001,
A-Meridies]
... a correctly drawn gusset (as per the PicDic) issues from the
top corner of the shield (just under the chief). A properly drawn
gusset also does not extend all the way to the bottom of the
field. It should be possible to have a dexter and a sinister
gusset on one shield and see some field between them. [Cáemgen
mac Olcain, 08/2001,
A-West]
Please advise the submitter to draw the flaunches issuing from
the top corners of the shield rather than from the chief. We have
seen an increasing number of flaunches drawn as issuant from
chief in the last few years. Please help educate your submitters
and heralds on how to correctly draw flaunches�or educate your
always-learning Laurel staff by providing period examples of this
artistic variant of flaunches. [Gaspar del Hoyo, 09/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
[two pallets wavy] The wavy would be more classic and
easier to identify if it were drawn with deeper waves. However,
except in the beginning of the armorial period, wavy is a fairly
shallow line compared to all the others. A shallow wavy line is
much more acceptable than a shallow embattled, engrailed, or
indented line. [Keran Roslin, 09/2001,
A-Æthelmearc]
On the forms, the dragon is clearly tinctured as erminois. This
was less obvious on the mini-emblazon on the letter of intent.
This is one case where fewer internal details in the dragon would
have been a wiser artistic choice, to avoid the possibility of
obscuring the ermine spots. [Armand Dragonetti, 09/2001,
A-Ansteorra]
Some commenters questioned the internal detail lines on these
mullets of eight points, which make them each look like a mullet
of four point saltirewise surmounted by a mullet of four points.
This is an acceptable artistic variant of a mullet of eight
points. [Colin de Vire, 09/2001,
A-Calontir]
... please advise the submitter to resubmit with a more standard
drawing of a sun. Period suns are generally multipointed mullets
(sometimes with some wavy rays) which fit into a circle. In this
case, the "sun" has points elongated to chief, base, dexter, and
sinister. [Nathaniel Constantine of Saxony, 09/2001,
R-Atenveldt] [Ed.: Returned for conflict]
[a bat-winged tyger sejant affronty head to dexter] This
tyger's identity is completely lost due to the uncommon posture
of the tyger, the particular rendition with the head obscured by
the wing, and the uncommon bat-winged charge variant. This
appears to be a dragon under any but the closest scrutiny. The
identifying nose tusk of the tyger is laid against the
no-contrast wing, the ears of the tyger are much like a dragon's,
and any other details of the body are obscured by the sejant
affronty position. This must be returned for unidentifiability.
In a different posture, with all the body parts clearly visible,
the bat-winged tyger should be identifiable. [Angus
Sturmisbroke, 09/2001,
R-Caid]
[Per chevron inverted azure and gules] The line of
division is too high up for a proper per chevron inverted line.
On a round form, one cannot say that a line of division issues
from the chief or from the sides of the escutcheon, as there are
no corners to distinguish these portions of the round form.
However, the proportions of this emblazon are such that the per
chevron inverted line would issue from the chief or from the top
corners of the shield if this were a standard heater shape. A per
chevron inverted line must issue from the sides of the
shield.

This artwork cannot represent any of the other myriad "inverted
triangle" armorial designs for various reasons: chiefs triangular
can't be overlain by an overall charge, piles extend much farther
to base and issue from the chief, and chaussé extends all the way
to base. Therefore this must be returned for redrawing. [Agnes
de Lanvallei, 09/2001,
R-Calontir]
[Gules, on a fess rayonny argent fimbriated sable ...] The
device form shows a fess rayonny argent fimbriated sable. While
varying degrees of outline thickness may be allowed due to
artistic license, this artwork cannot reasonably be interpreted
any other way, since the outlines of all the other charges are a
normal, much thinner, line. We do not allow charges argent
fimbriated sable on a gules field. This must be returned for
redrawing. [Roise inghean ui Ruaidhri 09/2001,
R-Calontir]
[Per chevron inverted] Please advise the submitter to draw
the per chevron inverted line deeper, so that it extends farther
to base. This is uncomfortably close to an odd sort of chief.
However, this cannot be mistaken for a chief triangular or any of
the other similar triangular charges or divisions, since it
clearly issues from the side of the field rather than the top
corners or top of the field. [Elspeth of Glendinning,
10/2001,
A-An Tir]
[Purpure ... a ford proper] Please advise the submitter to
draw the ford so that an argent stripe is against the purpure
field. This is still identifiable as a ford since it has enough
stripes, so this does not need to be returned for contrast
problems. [Sabine d'Angers, 10/2001,
A-An Tir] Please advise the submitter to draw the chief thicker.
The chief should be roughly one-fifth to one-third the height of
the shield. [Ceara ingen uí Líadnáin, 10/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[a griffin segreant Or winged argent maintaining an acorn
Or] Conflict with ... Sable, a griffin segreant within an
annulet Or. There is one CD for removing the annulet. There
is no difference for adding the small maintained acorn. Under
normal circumstances, the wings of a griffin are considered half
the charge for purposes of tincture changes. However, this
griffin is drawn with abnormally small wings. We register the
emblazon, not the blazon, so we cannot give a CD for changing the
tincture of wing color only unless the griffin is drawn with
normal proportions. In a winged quadruped monster such as a
griffin, a normal depiction has the wings one-third to one-half
of the visual weight of the charge. If the griffin were drawn
this way, neither this conflict, nor the other conflicts listed
here, would apply. ... [Alana Griffin , 10/2001,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Per saltire azure and sable, two curved swords addorsed
inverted argent overall a rose Or]The emblazon here is
confusing. It is impossible to tell whether these inverted swords
are palewise in fess or in saltire. This is a combination of the
fact that the center of the swords is obscured by the overall
rose, and the fact that the swords are curved. One also cannot
tell whether these are scimitars, seaxes, or possibly falchions.
Because of the identifiability problem, this must be returned.
[Hurrem bint Rashid, 10/2001,
R-Ansteorra]
[A bear passant bendwise sable] Conflict with the City of
Berlin, Argent, a bear rampant sable. There is one CD for
the change of field. Rampant animals often have a bendwise body
posture, so rampant may often look much like passant bendwise.
There seems to be no period pattern of use of passant bendwise
animals other than those animals which lay on a bend. Therefore
this bear cannot be given difference for posture from a bear
rampant. [Tirloch of Tallaght, 10/2001,
R-Atlantia]
The bordure here is much too thin to be acceptable. Each side of
a bordure is usually as thick as one-eighth to one-tenth of the
shield width, and this bordure is less than one-twentieth of the
shield width. Part of the problem is that the bordure was drawn
with a very thick black outline compared to the outlines on the
dragon's head. This outline cut into the white part of the
bordure and also had somewhat of an appearance of
fimbriation.

Please advise the submitter to be careful on future submissions
to avoid outlines so thick that they appear to be fimbriation. My
staff advises me that, in many cases, the problem with thick
outlines that appear to be fimbriation is due to use of the
computer program "Blazons". As a general rule, heraldic art from
that program is flawed, and we encourage the College to educate
their submitters not to use this program to generate the artwork
used on their forms. [Magy McTerlach, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
The submission must be returned because the pale is drawn so wide
that it is not period style. A redrawing would solve this
problem. To quote al-Jamal, "While an ordinary will normally
widen or narrow depending upon whether it is charged and/or
surrounded by charges, the width here seems a bit excessive,
covering more than half the field and thus being wider than even
the modern Canadian pale." [Maura McCrery, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
The seals are not in a recognizable posture. They are neither
erect nor sejant nor naiant and cannot accurately be blazoned.
Charges must be reproducible from the blazon in order to be
acceptable. [Séighín inghean Giolla Eáin, 10/2001,
R-Meridies]
This is not a pile, because it issues from the top corners of the
shield. Nor is it chaussé, because it does not extend all the way
to base. Nor is it a chief triangular, because it is much too
deep. Nor is it a per chevron inverted field division, because it
does not issue from the sides of the field. As a result, this
must be returned. [Rickard of Gwyntarian, 10/2001,
R-Middle]
It is also important to note that the Crayola-marker orange used
to tincture this charge classes as a color rather than a metal.
It thus cannot be used as a charge on a purple chief. [Randall
Carrick,10/2001,
R-Outlands]
[a base engrailed] The engrailing is too small and shallow
to be acceptable. There are ten cups in the engrailing, which
would be a fairly large number on a fess. Here the width across
the base is much smaller than the width of a fess. [Derdriu de
Duglas, 10/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[Manx cat rampant] The College could not identify this
animal as a cat, generally believing it appeared to be some sort
of dog, or perhaps a bear. While period heraldic art was by no
means always realistic, it had unmistakable cues to the identity
of the type of animal, especially in stylized artwork. Because
the Manx cat has no tail, one of these cues was lost, making it
all the more important that the remainder of the animal be drawn
recognizably as a cat. Since this drawing was not identifiable,
the armory must be returned. [Zachary Strangeman, 11/2001,
R-Meridies]
These are not lightning bolts, as they lack the arrowheads at the
end. They are neither bendlets bretessed nor
embattled-counterembattled and are not defined charges in
heraldry. This is a sufficient reason for return. [Calum
Nickeson, 11/2001,
R-Trimaris]
[a ducal coronet] Please advise the submitter to draw the
ducal coronet in the correct fashion, with sets of strawberry
leaves visible at the sides of the coronet as well as in the
center. [Alan Youngforest, 12/2001,
A-Artemisia]
[Per chevron throughout purpure and argent, two estoiles
argent and a dragonfly vert] In this emblazon, the charge in
base is larger than the charges in chief. In period, a group of
charges two and one often had the basemost charge drawn larger
than the chiefmost charges, in order to best fill the space.
While that tendency is unusually exaggerated in this submission,
it does not require reblazon or reinterpretation. [Letia
Thistelthueyt, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[on a fess embattled argent two wildcats salient respectant
guardant] These wildcats are as identifiable as any two
salient respectant animals can be in the limited vertical space
provided by a fess. They have distinctive cat's ears and a
wildcat's stubbed tail. Therefore, they are recognizable enough
to accept. [Ulrich von Retelsdorf, 01/2002,
A-Caid]
[a bend sinister ermine] ... if a bend ermine is drawn
with palewise spots, we will blazon it simply as ermine
and instruct the submitter to draw the fur in a more period
fashion. However, if a bend is charged with palewise charges,
they will continue to be explicitly blazoned as palewise.
[Artemisia da Quieto d'Arzenta, 01/2002,
A-Lochac] [Ed.: See under Fur for the
complete discussion.]
[in fess a horse's head couped close a horse's head caboshed
and a horse's head couped close contourny all conjoined] The
armory needs to be redrawn or redesigned. The central cabossed
head is not recognizable as a horse's head because it is much too
wide. The other horse's heads' identifiability is compromised by
the very close conjoining with the central head. [Philip of
Crescent Moon, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
[Per chevron gules semy of compass stars argent and ermine, a
wolf and a bear combattant argent] Only one of the strewn
compass stars is clearly identifiable: the rest of the strewn
charges are obscured significantly by other elements of the
design. This is a reason for return under RfS VIII.3, Armorial
Identifiability: "Elements must be used in a design so as to
preserve their individual identifiability. Identifiable elements
may be rendered unidentifiable by significant reduction in size,
marginal contrast, excessive counterchanging, voiding, or
fimbriation, or by being obscured by other elements of the
design." [Sergei Bolotnikov, 03/2002,
R-Æthelmearc] [A cross of Santiago erminois] The ermine
spots are too numerous and small to be identified. There are over
40 full or partial spots on this thin-limbed cross. It is
difficult to imagine the spots being large enough to identify
unless there were fewer than half as many on the cross.
[William le Fendur, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
Remember, enfiling is equivalent to threading (as
in threading a needle). [Randal Avery of the Mease,
04/2002,
A-Artemisia]
[A dragon sejant contourny barry engrailed vert and Or]
There were some concerns in the College that the engrailing would
not be identifiable due to the complex outline of the charge and
the internal details. The full-sized colored emblazon shows that
the engrailing is very obvious. This barry engrailed monster is
at most one step from period practice, since animate charges in
multiply divided tinctures were found in period armory. One of
the most famous examples is that of the arms of Hesse, Azure,
a lion rampant queue-forchy barruly argent and gules crowned
Or. Siebmacher's 1605 Wappenbuch gives a number of
other examples, including Truchess von Wellerswalde, Azure, an
eagle displayed barry argent and gules (f. 161), Schirau,
Azure, a unicorn rampant bendy gules and argent (f. 69)
and Badendorf, Azure, a lion lozengy argent and gules crowned
Or (f. 179). [Killian M'Cahall, 04/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[a chief invected] The chief is drawn with four
invections, which is an acceptable number. However, the
invections are much too shallow to be acceptable. Good invections
are close to semicircles, about twice as wide as they are deep.
These are so shallow that the line of division is not
identifiable at any distance. [Jacomus Wyndswift, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[Argent, on a fess indented gules a wolf rampant contourny
between the halves of a broken chain issuant from the flanks
argent] The armory was originally blazoned as Gules, a
wolf rampant contourny between issuant from sinister and dexter
two broken chains fesswise, a chief indented and a base indented
argent. However, the visual realities clearly indicate that
this should be a fess indented. Very little period armory
combines both a chief and a base, so the visual interpretation of
the fess here is even more striking when considered against the
background of period heraldic design. [Gunnarr skáld
Þorvaldsson, 06/2002,
Ealdormere]
... in period, ermine spots on a bend generally tilt to follow
the bend. We would expect ermine spots on a bend sinister to
follow the bend sinister, instead of being drawn palewise as with
this submission. [Rhys Ravenscroft, 07/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
[Or goutty de sang] The gouttes are too numerous and too
small to be identifiable. There was a significant discrepancy
between the emblazon on the forms and the mini-emblazon on the
Letter of Intent. There are approximately 130 gouttes on the
form, and approximately 40 gouttes on the mini-emblazon. Forty
charges is a large number to have on the field compared to the
standard period depiction of a group of strewn charges (which
often has as few as ten charges on the field). As long as the
charges in a group of strewn charges maintain their
identifiability, they are acceptable regardless of the exact
number of charges in the emblazon. [Steffan von Hessen,
07/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
We would like to note that it is acceptable for a wyvern to have
two hind legs as drawn here. Some commenters thought that wyverns
had to be drawn with two forelegs rather than two hind legs. Both
sorts of emblazon may be found in period armory. For examples of
wyverns which appear to have hind legs (they are proportioned
more or less like a long-tailed bird), see Dennys' Heraldic
Imagination p.189, illustration of the attributed arms of
Uther Pendragon. See also the Grand Armorial Équestre de la
Toison d'Or (aka the European Armorial in the
Pinches/Wood edition), Holy Roman Empire section, families of
Mesze and Neidecker. For examples where the wyverns appear to
have forelegs (proportioned like a winged reptile without hind
legs) see Siebmacher's Wappenbuch, f. 144 Die Wormb and f.
130 Breidenstein. For wyverns whose two legs are not clearly
identifiable either as forelegs or hind legs, see Burgave de
Drachenfels found in Armorial Bellenville f. 18r and in
Gelre f. 28v. [William Cormac Britt, 07/2002,
R-Meridies]
Please advise the submitter to draw the barry with six or more
traits. [Antonia di Battista, 08/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
The bendy sinister field should also be redrawn. Presently all
sections of the field are drawn at a very shallow angle very
close to the horizontal lines of barry. Bendy sinister should be
at approximately 45 degrees from the horizontal. In addition,
when redrawing, the submitter should draw all the traits of the
field at the same angle, rather than the varying angles presently
used. [Gunnv{o,}r Vikarrsdóttir, 08/2002,
R-Artemisia]
The emblazon blurs the distinction between a chief and a per fess
line of division. If this is a charged chief, the line marking
the bottom of the chief needs to be higher, and in particular,
the bottom points of the rayonny line should not extend as far
down as the fess point of the shield. The moon should also be
drawn larger as befits a primary charge.

If this is a per fess division, the rayonny line should extend
equally over and under the fess line of the shield. In a per fess
interpetation the equal visual weight of the lozenges and the
moon is appropriate.

As this cannot be accurately blazoned, it must be returned per
RfS VII.7. [Lyutsina Manova, 09/2002,
R-An Tir]
[Per bend embattled vert and purpure, a compass star and a
chief indented argent] ... the per bend line is not correctly
drawn. The per bend line should bisect the portion of the field
which shows beneath the chief. The chiefmost point on the per
bend line should be where the bottom of the chief meets the
dexter side of the shield. [Eleanor of Orkney, 09/2002,
R-Lochac]
[Argent, two double-bitted battleaxes and a phoenix azure]
We have reblazoned the device to show that it consists of a group
of equally-sized primary charges arranged two and one. There were
some questions in the commentary about the way in which the
charges were arranged. Because all three charges are longer
vertically than horizontally, it is a reasonable artistic choice
to draw them so that the bottom part of the chiefmost charges is
alongside the top part of the basemost charge. [Simon von
Beckum, 01/2003,
A-East]
[a pegasus passant reguardant contourny] Please advise the
submitter to draw the pegasus so that the head does not overlap
the wing. [Geneviève Ravencrest, 02/2003,
Æthelmearc]
[a swan naiant affronty wings displayed head to sinister]
The swan was originally blazoned as displayed, which would
show the legs and tail of the swan and would show the breast of
the swan straight towards the viewer. This emblazon shows a swan
swimming in a posture halfway between affronty and to sinister.
As a result, it is in trian aspect and it is not acceptable,
because it cannot be blazoned accurately. [Alianor atte Red
Swanne, 02/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[a sea serpent erect] Please advise the submitters to draw
the serpent erect correctly. Its tail should be to base, rather
than twisting upwards and overlapping the serpent's body. The
current rendition obscures the identifiability of the serpent's
posture, although it does not obscure it so much that it may not
be registered. [Krakafjord, Shire of, 04/2003,
A-An Tir]
The charges on the chief are much too shallow to be identifiable
as crescents. They are thus not acceptable by RfS VII.7.a.
[Rhiannon Basset, 05/2003,
R-East]
[ermine field] The ermine spots in the full-sized emblazon
had identifiability problems. The spots were very numerous and
small, and many of the spots were hampered further in their
identifiability by being partially obscured by the chevron
engrailed and the Maltese crosses. This lack of identifiability
can be a reason for return under RfS VIII.3, which states in
pertinent part "Identifiable elements may be rendered
unidentifiable by significant reduction in size ... or by being
obscured by other elements of the design."

Unfortunately, because there was a significant discrepancy
between the artwork in the full-sized emblazon and the
mini-emblazon provided to the College of Arms in the Letter of
Intent, we were unable to get the College's input on this
armorial style problem. The mini-emblazon illustrated the ermine
field with 20 ermine spots, none of which were obscured by other
charges in the armory. The full-sized emblazon shows 60 full or
partially obscured ermine spots, each of which was much smaller
proportionally than the ermine spots on the mini-emblazon.
Usually we would rely heavily on the College's input to determine
whether the ermine spots were in fact too unidentifiable to be
registered under RfS VIII.3, or whether the submission's
identifiability was sufficient to enable it to be registered,
with an artistic note to the submitter to draw fewer, larger, and
less obscured ermine spots. [Genevieve de Calais, 06/2003,
R-West]
[Per chevron gules and argent, two thistles Or and a bear
rampant sable] Please advise the submitter to draw the per
chevron line somewhat lower on the field, allowing the thistles
and the bear to be more similar in size. While it is not uncommon
for the bottom charge of a group of three charges arranged two
and one to be larger than the top two charges, this bear (and the
space on which it lies) is disproportionately large. [Robert
Crosar, 07/2003,
A-Caid]
[a chief embattled ermine] On the first viewing of the
submission form, the Wreath meeting attendees had a lively
discussion about whether the ermine spots were too small to be
identified. While there were strong adherents to both sides of
this question, the consensus was that the ermine spots were
sufficiently identifiable, especially because, for the most part,
the ermine spots were neither obscuring, nor obscured by, other
elements of the design.

We were suprised at the lack of commentary on the identifiability
issue, and (on inspection of the Letter of Intent) found that
there was a notable discrepancy between the depiction of the
ermine chief in the full-sized emblazon and in the mini-emblazon.
The mini-emblazon drew the embattled chief with two rows of five
ermine spots each, with the lower line "offset" so that each
ermine spot is centered in the space between the two ermine spots
above it. However, the full-sized emblazon had twice as many rows
and almost twice as many ermine spots per row (except for the
bottom row, which had just as many spots, as it only had one spot
per embattlement). It was no surprise that the issue with the
identifiability of the ermine spots was not raised in the
commentary - the identifiability issue did not even begin to
arise on the mini-emblazon.

As a period artistic note, the depiction in the mini-emblazon is
very much in keeping with period armorial depictions both of
ermine chiefs and of the portion of an ermine field showing over
the top of a fess. The majority of depictions which Wreath staff
was able to find on a short research mission show two rows of
(offset) ermine spots with 4-7 spots per row. We were not able to
find (nor were we were presented with evidence for) a depiction
of a period ermine chief with more than three rows of ermine
spots on it. We will note that ermine spots are often packed more
densely on some other types of armorial elements, such as ermine
beasts and ermine fretty (where the complex outline of the beast
and the narrow lathes of the fretty encourage the depiction of
small and numerous ermine spots). [Jean de Leedes,
07/2003,
A-West]
[Azure semy of compass stars, on a flame Or a crescent
azure] Please advise the submitter to have less overlap
between the compass stars and the flames. In period armory,
primary charges do at times overlap the surrounding strewn
charges. However, because of the complex outline of this (period
style) flame, and the fact that it is tinctured identically to
the strewn charges which it overlaps, the overlap compromises the
identfiability of both charge groups. [Finbarr Mathgamain mac
Conchobair and Aífe Fael ingen Brénainn, 08/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
[a chief embattled] The chief is drawn with the minimum
acceptable number of embattlements. There are three embattlements
pointing out from the chief, and the two outermost embattlements
touch the side of the shield, so there are three "down" and two
"up", and the outside edges of the two outside "down"
embattlements touch the sides of the shield. This would also be
acceptable if there were three "up" and two "down." Usually,
however, an embattled chief would be drawn with two more
embattlements (so, for example, three "down" and four "up").
[Éamonn mac Rioghbhardáin, 09/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[on a rose argent a sword inverted sable] As drawn in this
submission, the tertiary sword is barely visible on the argent
rose. The problem is with this particular rendition, not with the
general design of a rose argent charged with a sword sable. In
this depiction, the rose is drawn with such prominent and
complicated sable details that the sable sword is visually lost.
RfS VIII.3 states, in pertinent part, "Identifiable elements may
be rendered unidentifiable by ... being obscured by other
elements of the design." [Eóin Ó hEochaidh, 09/2003,
R-Atlantia]
[a wolf statant argent] The cumulative problems with the
artwork call for redrawing. The wolf is not clearly identifiable
as a wolf. It does not have a wolf's long bushy tail, nor does it
have a wolf's erect pointed ears. The head and neck are slightly
in trian aspect, which causes the neck to effectively disappear,
which also hampers the identifiability of the animal. Only about
half the people who commented on this submission or who viewed
this submission at the Wreath meeting were able to clearly
identify this charge as a canine, and few of them believed it to
be a wolf. [Randolf Garard, 10/2003,
R-Atlantia]

EMBLAZON --
Coloring Problems

From Wreath: Coloring
Problems
We remind the College that we rule on an emblazon's acceptability
based on the appearance of the emblazon on the form at the Wreath
meeting. This includes determining whether all the tinctures on
the form are acceptable heraldic tinctures. We have multiple
people at the meeting looking at the forms and helping to make
this decision. This policy is in accordance with previous
practices: We want to remind the College that we register what is
submitted, and not the blazon. We are getting more and more
submissions that were done using color copiers or color printers.
While we have nothing against using modern technology (Laurel has
been known to use it now and then), the colors must be
identifiable. If the copier/printer can not produce recognizable
tinctures, it shouldn't be used. If it is used, the submission
may be returned. (Cover Letter June 1997) We also note that
Laurel (at this time, via Wreath) may, at any time, be called on
to reblazon old armory based on the appearance of the old forms
in the file. Certain sorts of pigment tend to change or fade so
that they are very difficult to make out correctly in old forms.
If the pigments used in old forms have changed drastically from
their original state while sitting in the files, this may result
in an incorrect reblazon.

We have seen quite a few problems in the last year with a
particular color which is blazoned as purpure, but (when viewed
at the Wreath meeting) is instead some shade between purple,
fuchsia, and bright pink. The culprit for the particular problem
appears to be some standard variety of color printer ink, which
is very fugitive and may change its tincture within a few weeks
of printing. Computer printer inks also seem to be responsible
for a dark tincture which is somewhere between purpure and azure,
which seems to be generally meant as azure. It is not yet clear
to us whether this latter confused tincture is due to the inks
changing color after the forms were mailed, or whether the color
was always ambiguous.

We have no intention of mandating the particular techniques used
to color in the forms. However, it is certainly in the best
interest of each kingdom to discourage submitters from using
pigments that will be likely to result in a return at Laurel, or
an incorrect later reblazon. Discouraged coloring methods
include:

Color Computer Printers: the colors may change even in
the few months between the time the forms leave the kingdom and
when they are ruled on by Wreath. Computer printer colors
sometimes continue to change while the forms are in the
files.

Metallic Markers and Paints: These tend to oxidize over
time, so that what began as gold or silver ends up as dull
brown or dark grey. If the marker or paints are used to detail
an underlying dark charge, this oxidation may cause the details
to be almost invisible when the form is viewed in later
years.

Colored Pencils: The pale shades of color pencil cause
difficulties in identifying tinctures and charges on the forms.
Colored pencil is the only standard medium in which a 'light
grey' (and thus argent) tincture is often difficult to
distinguish from a 'black' (and thus sable) tincture. The pale
shades also make it hard to get good identifiability of charges
due to the low contrast between tinctures when viewing the
form. We try hard at the Wreath meetings to keep any emblazon's
medium from interfering with our decisions about
identifiability and visual difference, but it is best to choose
a pigment that avoids the problem.

Wax Crayons, Oil Paints, Oil Pastels, Other Sticky
Pigments: These pigments can cement paperwork together in
the files. It is hard to do a visual comparison with a form
which is stuck ineradicably to the paper in front of it, or has
had half its pigment peel off onto the paper in front of it.

We continue to support, without any commercial
incentive to do so, the humble yet effective Crayola(R) Classic
Colors Markers. While Crayola markers are not waterproof, they
have good intense heraldic colors that keep "true" as long as the
forms are in the files and out of direct sunlight. Note that
there are other types of Crayola marker than the "Classic Colors"
markers, and these are not recommended. ("Crayola" is a
registered trademark of Binney & Smith.) [09/2002,
CL]
The coronet and chain were blazoned as sable on the Letter
of Intent but they are argent. This sort of difficulty
derives from using colored pencils on the forms. On inspection
under strong light, the coronet and chain are metallic silver and
the tail and mane of the horse are black, but on a cursory
inspection in dim light they both look like "dark grey pencil",
hence (presumably) the confusion leading to the misblazon.
Because the addition or tincture change of a collar and chain on
an entire animal is not worth difference, it is not necessary to
pend this device for further conflict research due to the
misblazon. However, if this degree of confusion were present in
the tincture of a more significant charge, the armory may have
been returned for inability to determine the tinctures in the
armory. [Betha of Bedford, 11/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
The submission was originally blazoned with sable rather than
with argent. However, the coloring of the emblazon used the
palest of grey to depict the sable. Very pale grey is argent, not
sable. While we do give allowances for the fact that colored
pencil, the medium used to color this emblazon, is often a light
shade of the represented tincture, this emblazon is unacceptable
in any medium. The Cover Letter for the LoAR of June 1997 color
letter stated:

We want to remind the College that we register what is
submitted, and not the blazon... If the copier/printer [or
other medium] can not produce recognizable tinctures, it
shouldn't be used. If it is used, the submission may be
returned.

[A holly
branch bendwise sinister inverted vert fructed gules enfiling a
mullet voided Or] The design of a charge enfiling a voided
mullet is a weirdness, but it is not in itself sufficient reason
for return. It is a weirdness because of the cumulative effects
of the unusual voided charge (the voided mullet), the unusual
action of enfiling, and the fact that the overlap implicit in the
act of enfiling reduces the identifiability of both charges
involved. Charges which in their standard period depiction
include a large central hole (such as laurel wreaths, annulets,
and mascles) are not considered a weirdness when enfiled. Charges
with small central holes (such as spur rowels and rustres), and
voided charges where the usual form of the charge is not voided
(mullets) will be considered a weirdness when enfiled.

The question of which charge in the heraldic ring-toss is
"enfiled" is one of the great heraldic cocktail party discussion
topics. The SCA has a precedent on the topic which is being
followed in this blazon:

[An arrow argent enfiling a serpent involved] The definition of
the term enfile has changed over the years. Boutell (English
Heraldry, 1902) equates it with "pierce": a sword passing
through a crown would enfile the crown. Brooke-Little (An
Heraldic Alphabet 1975) equates it with "encircle": a sword
passing through a crown would be enfiled by the crown. The
confusion is sufficient reason to avoid the use of the term,
but sometimes (as with this submission) it's hard to avoid.
Friar (Dictionary of Heraldry, 1987, p.137) agrees with
Boutell's definition; and that definition does follow more
naturally from the etymology of the word (from French fil,
"thread": beads are threaded on a string, crowns are enfiled on
[by] a sword). That is the definition used here.

[Evelyn atte Holye, 12/2001,
A-Ealdormere]
[(Fieldless) An anchor fouled of its cable argent enfiling a
coronet bendwise sinister Or pearled argent] There is a high
degree of overlap between the coronet and the anchor and its
cable. This is not acceptable style for overall charges on a
fieldless badge for reasons of identifiability and non-period
style. The same stylistic constraints which apply to charges
surmounted by overall charges also apply to charges enfiled by
other charges.

The orientation of the coronet is neither clearly bendwise
sinister nor clearly palewise. This is not blazonable and
therefore a reason for return under RfS VII.7.b. There are also
contrast problems with this emblazon. The argent pearls on the
coronet overlap the argent anchor, giving no contrast at those
points. [William the Mariner, 04/2003,
R-An Tir]

[Per saltire azure
and sable, an escarbuncle within an orle of ermine spots
argent] The ermine spots are identifiable here as charges in
orle rather than an ermined field. Having a bit more field
showing between the escarbuncle and the spots would help avoid
the possible confusion between these designs. Because this is an
orle of ermine spots, rather than an unusual field, this is clear
of conflict with the badge ... Purpure, an escarbuncle
argent. There is one CD for the field and another for adding
the orle of ermine spots. [Aidan Macpherson, 08/2001,
A-Caid]
[Azure, four ermine spots in cross bases to center argent each
charged with a roundel azure] This does not conflict with
Darya Kazakova, (Fieldless) A cross of four ermine spots
conjoined argent. There is a CD for fieldlessness, and
another for the orientation of the ermine spots.

Crosses of ermine spots are drawn with the tops of the ermine
spots conjoined in the center, rather than the bases of the
ermine spots conjoined in the center. A question was raised in
commentary about whether it was reasonable to give an orientation
CD for inverting an ermine spot. The vast majority of ermine
spots, and all the ermine spots which use a three-roundel "clasp"
artistic motif (as with this submission), are not symmetrical
about the horizontal axis. (In many renditions of ermine spots,
the three roundels, or voided billet, at the top of the spot
represent a stylized clasp, as would have been used to hold an
ermine tail or skin to an underlying garment or less expensive
fur.) As a result, there is a CD for posture between an ermine
spot and an ermine spot inverted.

Another question was raised about whether the roundels at the
base of the ermine spots should be worth difference, as addition
of tertiaries, or should be considered artistic detailing. Given
the wide diversity in the shape of the bottom of ermine spots,
the small roundels seemed more like artistic details than genuine
addition of tertiary charges. [Constance de Montbard,
09/2001,
A-An Tir]
[Vert, a bend sinister argent ermined vert between three
ermine spots argent] When there are three or more ermine
spots on a stripe ordinary such as a bend or fess or chief, the
ordinary will be interpreted as ermined, as this is a standard
way of drawing an ermine stripe ordinary. It is also true that
small numbers of ermine spots on the field may be interpreted as
charges, rather than part of an ermined tincture. Three spots
around a bend sinister are so sparsely distributed that they can
only be interpreted as charges.

No documentation was presented, and none was found, for the
combination of ermine spots as distinct charges and ermine spots
as part of an ermined tincture in the same armory. Until
documentation for this combination is presented, this combination
will be considered a weirdness. [Edmund Sharpe, 02/2002,
A-Atlantia]
... in period, ermine spots on a bend generally tilt to follow
the bend. We would expect ermine spots on a bend sinister to
follow the bend sinister, instead of being drawn palewise as with
this submission. [Rhys Ravenscroft, 07/2002,
A-Atenveldt]
We have blazoned the ermine spots in base as a bar of ermine
spots, parallel to armory using arrangements of unnumbered
charges such as an orle of martlets. "Unnumbered" charges,
such as the charges in an orle of martlets, are too many to
explicitly enumerate: generally eight or more charges.

Orles of unnumbered charges are found in period armory, but no
documentation has been provided for barrulets abased of
unnumbered charges (or other ordinaries abased of unnumbered
charges). This arrangement is a step from period practice. The
fact that the unnumbered charges in question are ermine spots is
a second step from period practice. While ermine spots are
reasonable charges when taken in small numbers, unnumbered ermine
spots are indicative of an ermined fur rather than a group of
charges. This combination is too many steps from period practice
to be acceptable. This design could alternately be blazoned with
a counter-ermine bar on a sable field, but that would contravene
the rules of contrast, further indicating that this design is not
period style. [Iuliana inghean Domhnaill, 10/2002,
R-East]
Some commentary asked whether this depiction of an ermine bend,
which charges the bend with five bendwise ermine spots, should be
blazoned as A bend argent charged with five ermine spots
sable rather than a bend ermine. This is an excellent period
depiction of an ermine bend. As noted in the January 2002 LoAR:

There seem to be few ermine bends in period, but they may be
found throughout the heraldic period. Those which [Maister Iago
ab Adam] found are all depicted with the ermine spots tilted
bendwise on the bend.

Maister Iago has provided some additional detailed
information about English depictions of ermine bends throughout
our period:

Out of seven period examples of ermine bends studied, two had
two offset rows of spots (like footprints up the bend), one had
seven spots arranged 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, one was charged and had the
spots arranged to fit around the charges, and three were drawn
as in this submission, with a single row of five spots
(although it should be noted that these last three examples are
all mid-16th C. or later.)

[An escarbuncle argent
surmounted by a roundel purpure] Conflict with ...
Purpure, an escarbuncle argent. There is one CD for
fieldlessness. Escarbuncles have a small center circle as part of
their charge definition, reflecting their origin as a reinforced
shield boss. As a result, this does not appear to be an
escarbuncle with an overall charge, but an escarbuncle in which
part of the charge is tinctured differently than the rest. Since
less than half the tincture of the charge has changed, this does
not get a tincture CD from Cerelia's armory. [Méraud
d'Avignon, 05/2002,
R-Æthelmearc]
Snowflakes are not period charges and have not been registerable
since the Cover Letter for the LoAR of August 1994. [Halla
bjarnylr, 07/2002,
R-Meridies]
Some commenters asked about the registerability of escarbuncles
with six arms. Per the LoAR of February 2001, "Escarbuncles of
six arms are found in period arms according to A Pictorial
Dictionary of Heraldry." [Kis Mária, 01/2004,
R-East]

ESTOILE

...
estoiles are one CD from compass stars. [Letia
Thistelthueyt, 12/2001,
A-Atlantia]
Mullets of five (straight) points and estoiles of six (wavy) rays
are both standard period charges, and the SCA gives a CD between
them, but an estoile of five (wavy) rays is not a period charge.
Per RfS X.4.e, armorial difference involving a non-period charge
must be determined based on whether "its shape in normal
depiction is significantly different" from the charge with which
it is being compared. Because the rays of estoiles are often
drawn with very shallow waves, it does not seem appropriate to
give a CD on purely visual grounds between a mullet of five
points and an estoile of five rays. [Ygraine de Bracy,
09/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[Counter-ermine, three estoiles Or] This does not conflict
with the Counts of Celje (important non-SCA arms), Azure,
three mullets of six points Or. There is one CD for changing
the field. The SCA has consistently held, since the Cover Letter
for the June 1991 LoAR, that mullets should be given a CD from
estoiles (in the estoile's standard depiction, with six wavy
rays). [Giovanni Basilio de Castronovo, 10/2002,
A-Lochac]
The estoile was blazoned on the Letter of Intent as
fesswise, which was presumably intended to describe the
fact that the estoile does not have a point to chief. It is not
necessary to blazon the exact orientation of either a mullet of
six points or an estoile (which by default has six rays). The
orientation of such charges appears to an artistic preference,
not a heraldically significant choice. For example, in Iberian
armory mullets of six points often do not have a point to chief,
but in French armory they often do have a point to chief.
[Stromgard, Barony of, 03/2004,
A-An Tir]
There is no difference for changing the type of tertiary charge
on an estoile per RfS X.4.j.ii, as an estoile is not a "suitable"
charge for purposes of this rule. [Eleanora von Ratzeburg,
03/2004,
R-Drachenwald]

FEATHER

[Per
chevron inverted azure and gules, a leaf bendwise sinister
argent] Both leaves and feathers are found in English
heraldry and do not seem to be considered variants of each other
in period. Thus, this is clear from the badge of Silver Quill
Pursuivant, (Tinctureless) A quill bendwise sinister within a
roundel. Even if the roundel is just an indication of a shape
for armorial display, rather than an actual charge, there is one
CD for fieldlessness and another for charge type. [Agnes de
Lanvallei, 09/2001,
R-Calontir] [Ed.: Returned for redraw of the line of
division]
[Per pale Or ermined purpure and purpure, a feather
argent] This was pended from the July 2001 LoAR for
consideration of a number of real-world badges, associated with
the English royal family or their close associates, which use a
single white feather as a major design element. The College of
Arms did not find a clear pattern suggesting that such a badge
design would be presumptuous, nor did the College find any
particular real-world white feather badge that appeared to be, in
its own right, important enough to be protected in the SCA.
Therefore, this may be registered. [Hrefna karlsefni,
11/2001,
A-Atenveldt]
[Gules, in pall inverted three feathers conjoined at the quill
argent] This is also clear of conflict with ... Gules, a
feather fan argent, handled Or. There is substantial
difference for purposes of RfS X.2 between a feather and a
feather fan. [Nakano Zenjirou Tadamasa, 02/2002,
A-Calontir]
The secondary charges were originally blazoned as quill
pens, but they lack the nib of a quill pen. They have been
reblazoned as feathers. [Dianaim ingen Eochada,
08/2002,
A-East]
The peacock feathers here are blazoned as proper.
According to the September 1993 LoAR, "A peacock feather proper
is mostly green, with an iridescent roundel near the end." The
feathers in this emblazon are sable with the eyes colored in
azure, vert, Or and purpure.

The "eyes" of the peacock feathers dwarf the rest of the feather.
Even though heraldic stylizations generally use a certain amount
of artistic exaggeration, the "eyes" of these feathers are too
disproportionate for these charges to be called peacock
feathers.

This submission must therefore be returned for redrawing. The
redrawing should rescale the feathers so that they are long
feathers with smaller eyes at the end, and the tincture of the
feathers should either be the previously defined proper for a
peacock feather or standard blazonable tincture(s). [Mary Rose
of Burgon, 10/2002,
R-Atenveldt]
[Device reblazon: Quarterly gules and purpure, a feather
bendwise Or] The previous blazon, Quarterly gules and
purpure, a peacock feather bendwise Or, did not accurately
describe the type of feather. Precedent makes it clear that we
distinguish between peacock feathers and regular feathers, to the
point of having given difference between them, "[A default
azure feather vs. a proper peacock plume] "There is one
CVD...for the change in type of feather. The peacock plume...is
quite distinct in shape, with a prominent 'eye'" (LoAR December
1990 p. 11). The feather in this submission is a normally shaped
feather. [Antoine de Breton, 12/2003,
A-Atenveldt]
The feather was blazoned on the LoI as a quill pen, but as
it has no nib, it is simply a feather. The slight
difference between these charges is artistic only, and no
difference is given between them. [Daimhín Cinncaidhe,
12/2003,
R-Trimaris]

FESS and BAR

[a
tower argent masoned sable] Architectural charges made of
stonework such as towers, castles and walls may be drawn masoned
as a matter of artist's license. Therefore, there is no
additional tincture difference for adding or removing masoning
for these types of charge. [Gemma Meen, 01/2002,
R-An Tir]
While redesigning, the submitter may also wish to consider that
the fess engrailed on the upper edge and invected on the lower is
not a period type of fess. Stylistically, the fess is at best a
weirdness. [Asbjørn Pedersen Marsvin, 01/2002,
R-Caid]
[Argent, on a fess indented gules a wolf rampant contourny
between the halves of a broken chain issuant from the flanks
argent] The armory was originally blazoned as Gules, a
wolf rampant contourny between issuant from sinister and dexter
two broken chains fesswise, a chief indented and a base indented
argent. However, the visual realities clearly indicate that
this should be a fess indented. Very little period armory
combines both a chief and a base, so the visual interpretation of
the fess here is even more striking when considered against the
background of period heraldic design.

Some commenters felt that a period fess indented may not look
like this, but must look like a fess lozengy or
fusilly. However, an indented ordinary may include a
center space, like the center space of an engrailed ordinary. The
arms of Pacanha in Godinho's early 16th C Portuguese Libro da
Nobreza are Argent, on a bend indented gules three
fleurs-de-lys argent. Pacanha's bend has approximately nine
distinct indentations on each side and a wide central area upon
which the fleurs-de-lys are placed. The fess here has similar
proportions, but with four indentations on each side of the
ordinary. [Gunnarr skáld Þorvaldsson, 06/2002,
Ealdormere]
[Argent, three crosses of Cerdaña sable between a chief and a
base azure] This armory is visually equivalent to Azure, a
fess argent charged with three crosses of Cerdaña two and one
sable. It therefore conflicts with a number of pieces of
armory protected by the SCA, including the flag of Honduras
(important non-SCA flag), Azure, on a fess argent five mullets
in saltire azure, and ... Azure, upon a fess argent, a
mole's paw print sable. In each case there is only one CD for
the cumulative changes to the group of charges on the fess.
[Bianca Sereni, 09/2002,
R-Ansteorra]
We have blazoned the ermine spots in base as a bar of ermine
spots, parallel to armory using arrangements of unnumbered
charges such as an orle of martlets. "Unnumbered" charges,
such as the charges in an orle of martlets, are too many to
explicitly enumerate: generally eight or more charges.

Orles of unnumbered charges are found in period armory, but no
documentation has been provided for barrulets abased of
unnumbered charges (or other ordinaries abased of unnumbered
charges). This arrangement is a step from period practice. The
fact that the unnumbered charges in question are ermine spots is
a second step from period practice. While ermine spots are
reasonable charges when taken in small numbers, unnumbered ermine
spots are indicative of an ermined fur rather than a group of
charges. This combination is too many steps from period practice
to be acceptable. This design could alternately be blazoned with
a counter-ermine bar on a sable field, but that would contravene
the rules of contrast, further indicating that this design is not
period style. [Iuliana inghean Domhnaill, 10/2002,
R-East]
[a fess cotised between two chevronels inverted] The
cotises are too thin to be acceptable. There are also problems
with the placement of the chiefmost chevronel inverted. The
chiefmost chevronel inverted should issue from the sides of the
shield or, at the highest, from the chiefmost corners of the
shield. In this emblazon, the chiefmost chevronel inverted issues
entirely from the chief of the shield. The cumulative problems
with the art require that it be returned for redrawing. (Note
that the placement of the bottommost chevronel inverted is
acceptable. It issues from the functional equivalent of the
"chiefmost corners" of its part of the shield, namely the
intersection between the bottom of the bottommost cotise and the
sides of the shield.)

We suggest that, when redrawing, the submitter make the fess
somewhat thinner, so that the chevronels inverted and the fess
are of roughly equal widths. Drawing the fess thinner will leave
more room for the cotises and chevronels inverted, and will be
more likely to recreate period heraldic style. We note that in
the period examples we have seen of the combination of a fess
between two chevronels, the fess and chevronels are of about
equal width. (See Bedingfeld and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry for
some examples, one from c. 1280 on p. 8 and one on the back cover
from the 15th C). [Ludwig W�rzsteiner, 10/2002,
R-Meridies]
[Argent, in chief three bars azure] This does not conflict
with the important non-SCA flags of both Monaco and Indonesia,
Per fess gules and argent. This submission could equally
well be blazoned Per fess barry argent and azure, and
argent. Viewing this piece of armory and the flags as
field-only armory, we have one change for changing the division
of the field, and another for changing the tincture of half the
field. [Ruarcc the Blind, 01/2003,
A-Calontir]
[Sable, in fess a roundel between two ravens respectant all
between two bars couped Or] The College generally felt that
this armory appeared to use a single primary charge group
consisting of three types of charges. While the two bars
surrounding the central charges would certainly be considered a
separate secondary group if they were throughout, the fact that
they are couped removes that secondary appearance. [Helgi
hrafnfæðir, 01/2003,
R-Caid]
Because chevrons and fesses embattled (with a complex line
of partition on the top of the charge and a plain line on the
bottom) and embattled counter-embattled (with a complex
line of partition on both sides of the charge) are found as
distinct treatments in period heraldry, there is a type CD
between them. [Robert Blackhawk, 04/2003,
A-Outlands]
[Per fess embattled Or and sable, a bear's head cabossed and
three bars wavy counterchanged] Conflict with ... Paly
gules and argent, a bear's head cabossed sable. This armory
is heraldically equivalent to Per fess embattled Or and wavy
sable and Or, a bear's head cabossed sable, as it is not
uncommon for barry fields to be drawn with either even or odd
numbers of traits. Therefore, there is one CD for changing the
field. There is not a second CD for moving the bear's head, as it
may only lie on the Or portion of the field for reasons of
contrast. RfS X.4.g states "Changing the relative positions of
charges in any group placed directly on the field or overall is
one clear difference, provided that change is not caused by other
changes to the design". Here, the change of the relative position
of the bear's head is caused by other changes to the design - the
tinctures of the field. [Bernard ben Moshe ha-Kohane,
04/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[a fess of three conjoined fusils] This does not conflict
with Vert, a dance Or between three daisies proper. There
is one CD for removing the secondary daisies. There is another CD
for the difference between a dance and a fess of fusils:

[a bend sinister fusilly vs. a bend sinister dancetty]
Evidence taken from the Dictionary of British Arms
strongly indicates that bends dancetty were not used
interchangeably with bends fusilly; in fact, they were
used by different people and in different ways. Thus there is a
CD for changing the line of division on the bend ... (LoAR
April 2001)

We have also researched the question in the
Dictionary of British Arms in the two bars section,
and also found that bars dancetty were used by different people
from bars lozengy. Unfortunately, the Dictionary of British
Arms is not yet published to the point where we could
research fesses, but the evidence so far found implies strongly
that what is true for bends and bars should also be true for
fesses.

We do note that there is some interchangeability in period
between the somewhat analogous lines
embattled-counterembattled and bretessed, which
also differ by putting the top and bottom lines 180 degrees out
of phase. As a consequence of the period interchangeability, we
do not give difference between embattled-counterembattled
and bretessed. However, the square and indented line
treatments are not exactly analogous, because there is no
"zig-zag" form of the square lines analogous to dancetty. The
"zig zag" form of embattled-counterembattled would look like the
shaft of the SCA charge of a lightning bolt (see the Pictorial
Dictionary for an illustration). There is no period treatment
of an ordinary which makes this sort of square "zig zag". Because
the two sides of a period ordinary
embattled-counterembattled or bretessed are always
separated by at least a thin amount of central ordinary, the two
treatments are much more visually similar, and this may have
contributed to the period confusion between them.

Some commentary on this submission addressed previous precedent
on this topic, which appears to need some clarification
(especially when only excerpts of the precedent were quoted).
Here is some discussion clarifying these past precedents. As
always, we encourage people quoting precedents to consider going
back to the original LoAR and reading the excerpts in context.

As a bend sinister of fusils is an artistic variant of
indented, there is not a CD between it and a bend
sinister indented (LoAR April 2001, p. 13)

This precedent only refers to the lack of difference
between an ordinary indented and an ordinary of fusils -
ordinaries dancetty are not discussed by this precedent at all.
Ordinaries indented and ordinaries of fusils were indeed
interchangeable artistic variants in period. In both an ordinary
indented and an ordinary of fusils, the top and bottom lines are
180 degrees out of phase, and the only difference is whether the
artist decides to touch the "inside" parts of the top and bottom
lines (creating an ordinary of fusils) or whether to leave some
space between them (leaving an ordinary indented).

...the distinction between 'dancetty' and 'indented' when
applied to ordinaries being not one of amplitude, as White Stag
suggests, but a distinction parallel to that between
counterembattled and bretassed (LoAR December 1988)

This precedent did not discuss the determination of
difference between ordinaries dancetty and indented, but solely
discussed the definitions of the two treatments. It makes the
very good point that there is no implication of an amplitude
difference between indented and dancetty (as indicated in some
very post-period treatises). As noted in the discussion above,
the difference between dancetty and indented is indeed "parallel"
to that between counterembattled and bretessed, but it is by no
means exactly the same. [Elena Bertholmeu, 05/2003,
A-Atlantia]
[two walls couped with portals] We have reblazoned the
castles as walls, because a castle by default has a
tower at each end, and these charges do not have any towers.
According to the Pictorial Dictionary, walls are
throughout and embattled by default, so it is necessary to blazon
these walls as couped. It is also necessary to blazon the portals
explicitly. [Hans Schneckenburg, 09/2003,
A-Caid]
[Barry rayonny Or and gules] Conflict with ... Or,
three bars wavy gules. Three bars wavy is heraldically
equivalent to barry wavy, so there is only one CD for the
change from wavy to rayonny. It also conflicts with ... Gules,
three bars Or. This is heraldically equivalent to
barry, so there is one CD for changing the line of the
barry from plain to rayonny, and no difference for swapping the
order of the tinctures on a multiply divided field like barry.
[Trimaris, Kingdom of, 12/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[Argent, three chevronels azure and overall a fleur-de-lys
gules] In this emblazon, the three chevronels are crunched
together in the center of the shield. We would not expect to find
three chevronels so close together in period armory unless the
chevronels were forced close together due to the presence of
secondary charges (as one might find in the hypothetical armory
Argent, three chevronels azure between three fleurs-de-lys
gules). In this emblazon, the three chevronels were drawn so
close together that this armory could almost be reblazoned as
Argent, on a chevron azure two chevronels argent and overall a
fleur-de-lys gules. As a general rule, three chevronels will
be drawn to fill the field, and are in fact considered
interchangeable with the chevronelly field division (see the LoAR
of November 2001 for more details about this).

Period armory does admit the possibility of two small diminutives
of an ordinary that are close together (rather than filling the
shield): a bar gemel (bar "twinned"). The bar gemel
is heraldically distinct from two bars: the bar gemel
consists of two very thin bars drawn close together, while two
bars will fill the space allotted to them. A bar gemel
is, in effect, a voided bar. A good period example of this
practice can be seen in the Herald's Roll circa 1280 on p. 8 of
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry: a coat using two
bars is found in the center coat of the bottom row, whereas
armory using two bars gemel is found on the dexter coat of
the top row, and on the sinister coat of the middle row. No
evidence has been presented, and none has been found for a
"triplet" version of a bar gemel. The "gemel" treatment of other
ordinaries, such as chevronels, bendlets or pallets, is
vanishingly rare in period. Aside from a few examples of bendlets
gemel in the 15th C Italian Stemmario Trivulziano, no
evidence has been presented or found for gemel charges other than
bars. The idea of a triplet version of a chevronel is thus two
steps from period practice ("two weirdnesses") and not
registerable. Thus, it is not reasonable to interpret this
emblazon as using such a hypothetical "triplet chevronel."

Because this emblazon blurs the distinction between three
chevronels and a chevron charged with two chevronels, it may not
be registered per RfS VII.7.a, "Identification Requirement".
[Alessandra da Ferrara, 01/2004,
R-Meridies]

FIELD DIVISION --
Barry

Please advise the submitter to draw the barry with
six or more traits. [Antonia di Battista, 08/2002,
A-Æthelmearc]
[Argent, in chief three bars azure] This does not conflict
with the important non-SCA flags of both Monaco and Indonesia,
Per fess gules and argent. This submission could equally
well be blazoned Per fess barry argent and azure, and
argent. Viewing this piece of armory and the flags as
field-only armory, we have one change for changing the division
of the field, and another for changing the tincture of half the
field. [Ruarcc the Blind, 01/2003,
A-Calontir]
[Per fess embattled Or and sable, a bear's head cabossed and
three bars wavy counterchanged] Conflict with ... Paly
gules and argent, a bear's head cabossed sable. This armory
is heraldically equivalent to Per fess embattled Or and wavy
sable and Or, a bear's head cabossed sable, as it is not
uncommon for barry fields to be drawn with either even or odd
numbers of traits. Therefore, there is one CD for changing the
field. There is not a second CD for moving the bear's head, as it
may only lie on the Or portion of the field for reasons of
contrast. RfS X.4.g states "Changing the relative positions of
charges in any group placed directly on the field or overall is
one clear difference, provided that change is not caused by other
changes to the design". Here, the change of the relative position
of the bear's head is caused by other changes to the design - the
tinctures of the field. [Bernard ben Moshe ha-Kohane,
04/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Barry rayonny Or and gules] Conflict with ... Or,
three bars wavy gules. Three bars wavy is heraldically
equivalent to barry wavy, so there is only one CD for the
change from wavy to rayonny. It also conflicts with ... Gules,
three bars Or. This is heraldically equivalent to
barry, so there is one CD for changing the line of the
barry from plain to rayonny, and no difference for swapping the
order of the tinctures on a multiply divided field like barry.
[Trimaris, Kingdom of, 12/2003,
R-Trimaris]
[A landscape (in pale sky azure, snow-capped mountains argent,
hills vert, prairie proper, and a wheat field proper) and on a
chief argent a cross gules] This armory posed some difficult
questions regarding blazon:

The arms of Alberta are not stylistically compatible with
pre-1600 heraldry, and are thus not easily described by SCA
blazon.

...

We are fortunate to have benefited by the efficiency and
kindness of the Canadian Heraldic Authority. The Chief Herald of
Canada, Robert D. Watt, provided the following information:

The most definitive information we have here is found on page
209 of Conrad Swan's, (now Sir Conrad Swan) landmark study
entitled 'Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty' (University of
Toronto Press, 1977). In the chapter on Alberta, Sir Conrad
notes that the arms were assigned by Royal Warrant on 30 May
1907 and were blazoned as follows: 'Azure, in front of a range
of snowy mountains proper a range of hills Vert, in base a
wheat field surmounted by a prairie both also proper, on a
chief Argent a St. George's cross.' The reference he gives is
College of Arms 175.127. As he was York Herald at the time of
writing and had full access to the records of the College, I
believe it is fair to assume that this blazon can be considered
absolutely accurate.

The real-world official blazon of the province of
Alberta is not clearly comprehensible from the perspective of SCA
blazon. It uses the term surmounted in a different way
than we do. It also assumes that the reader is aware that a St.
George's cross is, by definition, a cross (throughout) gules. We
have elected to reblazon the armory for the SCA, as we generally
do with important real-world armory when it is necessary. We have
left in the ambiguous proper tinctures for the wheat field
and the prairie, as this ambiguity seems to be part of the
definition of the armory. By blazoning this armory, exclusive of
the chief, as a landscape, we hope to make it clear for
future researchers that this armory is distinct from most
heraldic treatments (aside from issues of purely visual
conflict). The landscape is not, for example, equivalent to a
variant of a barry field, or some combination of bars, but it is
an excellent example of an overly pictorial design per RfS
VIII.4.a, that could not be registered to a new SCA submitter.
[Alberta, 02/2004,
A-Society for Creative Anchronism]

FIELD DIVISION --
Bendy and Bendy Sinister

The bendy sinister field should
also be redrawn. Presently all sections of the field are drawn at
a very shallow angle very close to the horizontal lines of barry.
Bendy sinister should be at approximately 45 degrees from the
horizontal. In addition, when redrawing, the submitter should
draw all the traits of the field at the same angle, rather than
the varying angles presently used. [Gunnv{o,}r
Vikarrsdóttir, 08/2002,
R-Artemisia]
[Argent, three bendlets azure each charged with a mullet of
six points palewise Or] Conflict with ..., Per pale gules
and sable, three compass stars in bend sinister Or. Because
armory with three or more bendlets is equivalent to armory with a
bendy field, this armory needs to be considered as if it were
blazoned as Bendy argent and azure, in bend sinister three
mullets of six points Or. Under this interpretation, there is
one CD for changing the field. There is no type difference
between the compass stars and the mullets of six points. Because
of the unusual (and non-period) design of compass stars, with
their four greater and four lesser points, they are considered as
variants of both mullets of four points and mullets of eight
points. There is no type difference between mullets of six points
and mullets of eight points and, hence, no difference between
mullets of six points and compass stars. [Brian Sigfridsson
von Niedersachsen, 07/2003,
R-Atenveldt]
[Bendy sinister vert and erminois] Conflict with ...
Bendy sinister of four vert, argent, purpure and argent.
There's no difference between bendy sinister of four and bendy
sinister of six. The two pieces of armory share a tincture, so
X.4.a.ii.b does not apply. This leaves one CD for changing the
tincture of the field, but that is all. [Cú Chonnacht Ó
Tighearnáin, 10/2003,
R-Middle]
[Quarterly gules and sable, three bendlets argent]
Conflict with Ysfael ap Briafael, Per bend bendy vert and
argent and vert. Ysfael's device could alternately be
blazoned as Vert, three bendlets enhanced argent, and was
originally submitted under that blazon. Ysfael's registration in
the LoAR of December 2000 stated, "Originally blazoned as
three bendlets enhanced, the blazon above more closely
describes the emblazon." When considering Ysfael's device under
the alternate blazon of Vert, three bendlets enhanced
argent, and comparing it to Tigernach's submission, there is
one CD for changing the field, but the second CD must come from
the change of location of the bendlets from enhanced.

Our original inclination was to give a second CD for enhancing
the bendlets under RfS X.4.g. However, evidence indicates that,
in period, armory using three bendlets enhanced was not distinct
from armory using three bendlets in their default location on the
field. We thus should not give difference between these
designs.

The Dictionary of British Arms (DBA) volume two gives very
few coats of arms using three bendlets enhanced (on p. 117). Most
of these coats are also found belonging to the same family but
with the three bendlets in their default position (on pp.
114-116): the arms of Byron, Argent, three bends [enhanced]
gules, Greeley, Gules, three bends [enhanced] Or, and
Mawnyse/Mauvesin, Gules, three bends [enhanced] argent.
For one of these families, there is scholarship which explicitly
states that the coat with the three bendlets enhanced is a
later version of the coat with three bendlets, rather than
a distinctly different, cadenced, coat. Woodward's A Treatise
on Heraldry British and Foreign discusses the arms of Byron
on p. 132, stating, "What appears to have been the original coat
of Biron viz., Argent, three bendlets gules, is now borne
with the bendlets enhanced (Fr. haussés) i.e. placed
higher in the shield, as in the arms of the poet, Lord
Byron."

The difference between three bendlets and three
bendlets enhanced is thus similar to the difference between
crosses bottony and crosses crosslet. We give no
difference between these crosses because, as discussed in the
LoAR of August 2002, "It is important to recall that the cross
bottony and the cross crosslet are both used to represent the
same charge throughout our period's heraldry. The bottony form is
found predominantly in earlier artwork, and the crosslet form
predominantly in later artwork." The evidence in DBA and Woodward
suggests that three bendlets and three bendlets
enhanced are both used to represent the same armory
throughout our period's heraldry. Just as the cross crosslet
became distinct from the cross bottony after our period, three
bendlets enhanced became distinct from three bendlets after our
period. [Tigernach Mag Samhradh�in, 11/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
[Or, three bendlets sinister vert] This submission is
heraldically equivalent to Bendy sinister Or and vert. It
thus conflicts with ... Bendy sinister of four vert, argent,
purpure and argent. There's no difference between bendy
sinister of four and bendy sinister of six. The two pieces of
armory share a tincture so X.4.a.ii.b does not apply. This leaves
one CD for changing the tincture of the field, but that is all.
[Gabriel Halte, 12/2003,
R-Drachenwald]

Some commenters thought that the field division
here might be chapé. Both the large- and small-sized emblazons
show this as a per chevron field rather than a chapé field, as
the line of division does not touch the top of the shield. Chapé
is always drawn touching the top of the shield. Thus there is no
problem with the unregisterable design of a chapé field charged
on the upper portion. [Hergeirr Þráinsson, 11/2001,
A-Atlantia]
[Per pale purpure and argent, a pile inverted throughout
counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per pale argent and
sable chapé ployé counterchanged. Finnguala's arms could as
easily be blazoned as Per pale argent and purpure chapé
counterchanged. Because "you cannot 'blazon your way out of'
a conflict" (LoAR of February 2000), these two pieces of armory
must both be compared as pile inverted throughout armory, and as
per pale and chapé (ployé) armory. As per pale and chapé armory
these conflict. There is one CD for changing the tincture of the
field, but not "complete change of tincture" by RfS X.4.a.ii.b,
since both fields share the tincture argent in common.

There is not a second CD for changing chapé ployé to
chapé. The family of Masbach/Muesbach is found at the end
of the 14th C in the Armorial Bellenville (see the Léon
Jéquier edition) and the armorial Gelre (see the Adam-Even
edition), using Per pale and chapé gules and argent or
Per pale and chapé argent and gules. In 1605 the same
family's arms are found in Siebmacher's Wappenbuch as
Per pale and chapé ployé gules and argent. General SCA
precedent has held that an enarched or ployé line is often an
artistic variant of a straight line in which the curvature of the
line is used to imply curvature of the shield. One recent
precedent regarding "chevron-like" objects or lines of partition
ployé did not give difference between straight and ployé:

[a chevron ployé vs. a chevron] Conflict ... there is
only a single CD for the type of the secondary charges.
[implying no CD for ployé vs. plain] (LoAR 4/00)

Based on the Masbach armory, it appears that chapé
ployéshould prove no exception to the general policy by which
ployé is given no difference from plain lines. We thus overturn
the following precedent:

[returning chapé ploye engrailed] While it is true that lines
[of division] could be enarched and also embattled, engrailed,
etc., the enarching was basically to show the curvature of the
shield. We do not believe that such is the case of a chapé
ployé. (LoAR 6/97 p. 12)

[Finnguala ingen uí Medra, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per pale sable and argent, a pile inverted throughout
counterchanged] Conflict with ... Per pale argent and
sable chapé ployé counterchanged. The armory in this
submission could also be blazoned as Per pale argent and sable
chapé counterchanged. Because "you cannot 'blazon your way
out of' a conflict" (LoAR February 2000), these must both be
compared as pile inverted throughout armory, and also as per pale
and chapé (ployé armory). In either interpretation, these have no
difference. Under the chapé ployé interpretation, there is no
difference between chapé ployé and chapé (see the LoAR of April
2002 for a more complete discussion of this issue.) There is no
other difference between the two coats of arms. Under the pile
inverted interpretation, there is also no difference between the
two coats of arms. Per the October 2001 LoAR, there is no
difference between a pile and a pile ployé, and piles inverted
would appear to act similarly. [Michael vomme Harze,
05/2002,
R-Caid]
[Argent chapé gules, a bear rampant sable and in chief two
thistles Or] This armory must be returned for using a chapé
field in which the upper portions are charged. The original
blazon for this armory described the field as per chevron
throughout, but the proportions of the emblazon clearly show
that the field is chapé and that the charges on the upper
portions of the field are therefore reasons for return. Note the
following precedent:

Listed on the LoI as having a per chevron line of
division, the location of the line of the division and the
relative sizes of the charges makes this an example of
chapé. Therefore, it must be returned ... for charging
its upper portions. (LoAR January 2000).

[Cellach mac Ualraig, 09/2002,
R-Caid]
[Per chevron throughout argent and gules, two frogs tergiant
vert and an increscent argent] The field drawn here is an
acceptable per chevron throughout field.

SCA precedent has been consistent, if somewhat unclear, regarding
per chevron throughout fields (which may have charges in
each portion of the field without violating any style rules) and
chapé fields (which may only have charges in the lower
portion of the field).

Both per chevron throughout and chapé fields have
the top of the line touch the top of the escutcheon. However, the
proportions of the rest of the line of division can make a
difference in whether the armory is viewed as per chevron
throughout or chapé in the SCA. If the line of division provides
a roughly equal balance between the top and bottom halves of the
field, it is considered a reasonable depiction of per chevron
throughout. If the line of division leaves the bottom half of
the field much larger than the top half, then it is considered
chapé. It is not uncommon for the bottommost charge on a
per chevron throughout field to be larger than the chiefmost
charge(s), but the bottommost charge should not be so large as to
force the field division up to the fess line and therefore
contribute to the appearance of a chapé field (requiring its
return).

As a general rule, the sides of a charged per chevron
throughout field hit the sides of the escutcheon
significantly lower than the fess line, while in charged
chapé fields, the line of division hits the sides of the
escutcheon at the fess line or higher. This follows from the need
for per chevron throughout fields to balance the top and
bottom halves of the field. Note the following precedent from the
LoAR of June 2002 (quoting, in part, an earlier precedent from
January 2000). This precedent is also consistent with earlier
precedents on the topic (bolded emphasis added):

The submission was blazoned on the LoI as Per chevron in chief.
It is a clear drawing of modern chapé: it's throughout
and high on the field. Note the following precedent:
"Listed on the LoI as having a per chevron line of division,
the location of the line of the division and the relative
sizes of the charges makes this an example of chapé.
Therefore, it must be returned ... for charging its upper
portions" (LoAR January 2000).

These precedents specifically set SCA policy for SCA
stylistic rules concerning charged fields which are per
chevron throughout and chapé. Period armory almost
never uses any charges on a chapé field. In period armory
using uncharged chapé fields, the line of division often extends
down so that the field division could be interchangeable with
per chevron throughout. Thus, we will continue to allow
the use of the blazon term chapé for uncharged armory
which resembles the period armory described above. [Aemilia
Sabine, 02/2003,
A-Calontir]
[Argent chapé azure, three goblets two and one gules] It
is not clear what the default arrangement for three charges on a
chapé field should be. The usual default on a plain field (two
and one) doesn't fit well on a chapé field, and thus seems an
unlikely default for that field. We have thus blazoned the
arrangement explicitly. [Waldemar Stanislaw of White
Mountain, 09/2003,
A-Trimaris]

FIELD DIVISION --
Checky and Party of Six

[Checky Or and argent, on a
fess sable ...] The use of Checky Or and argent is
grandfathered to the Kingdom of An Tir. [An Tir, Kingodm
of, 09/2001,
A-An Tir]
Party of six pieces is substantially different from checky.
[Jeanne Marie Lacroix, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
[Party of six vert and Or] Conflict with ... Per fess
Or and sable, a pale counterchanged. "You cannot 'blazon your
way out of a conflict'" (LoAR of February 2000). Thus we must
compare these arms both as party of six field-primary armory and
as counterchanged pales. When considered as party of six
field-primary armory, these conflict. By RfS X.4.ii.b, "If the
fields of two field-primary armory have no tinctures in common,
they are considered completely different and do not conflict,
irrespective of any other similarities between them." In the LoAR
of November 2000, Per saltire gules and azure was held to
conflict with Per saltire Or and gules, because "While
each portion of the field has changed tincture, one cannot say
that they do not have a tincture in common." This case is
similar: the two pieces of armory have a tincture in common, even
though each portion of the field has changed tincture. It is also
worth noting that RfS X.4.a does not give difference for swapping
the order of two tinctures on a party of six field: "There is a
clear difference for reversing the tinctures of a field evenly
divided into two parts, per saltire, or quarterly,
but not for reversing the tinctures of a field divided in any
other way". [Jeanne Marie Lacroix, 03/2002,
R-Caid]
[Party of six pieces vert bezanty and paly or and azure]
Conflict with Cornwall, Sable bezanty (important non-SCA
arms). There is one CD for changing the field. There is no
difference for changing the arrangement of the charges, since the
bezants cannot reasonably be expected to fall on the very thin
portions of azure in the paly portions of the field, and they
certainly may not fall on the same-tincture Or portions of the
paly portions of the field.

Some commenters inquired whether the party of six pieces
field division was ever used for marshalling and, if so, whether
the armory in this submission would thus appear to be marshalled
arms. Note that RfS XI.3 is only concerned with divisions
"commonly used for marshalling", not divisions "which may rarely
have been used for marshalling." We have only found a few 16th C
English coats (and a few more post-period coats) with marshalling
in six pieces. Each such example uses a different coat in each of
the six pieces (such as the arms of Jane Seymour on p. 87 of
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry, painted c. 1536).
No evidence has yet been presented that party of six was
"commonly" used for marshalling. No evidence has yet been
presented for party of six being used to marshal only two
separate coats (which might give an appearance like the armory in
this submission). Without new evidence, there seems no compelling
reason to add party of six pieces to the fields which the SCA has
found to have been "commonly used for marshalling".

There were also some style questions raised about this armory. We
note that no evidence has yet been presented for armory using a
party of six field with more than one charge in each section of
the field. However, since the charged portions of the field
merely use multiples of a single type of charge, this is at worst
one step from period style ("a weirdness") and is not in itself a
bar to registration. [Crystine Thickpenny of Giggleswick,
09/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[Party of six pieces per fess nebuly azure and Or, three frets
Or and three crabs azure] Party of six pieces was found with
more than one type of charge on the field - albeit infrequently.
Gwynn-Jones' Art of Heraldry (p. 103) illustrates arms
from c. 1558 that can be blazoned as Party of six pieces azure
and Or, three roundels barry wavy two and one argent and vert and
three lion's heads erased one and two gules. Anthony Wagner's
Historic Heraldry of Britain gives the arms of Thomas
Cromwell (d. 1540) as Party of six pieces Or and gules, three
fleurs-de-lys azure and three pelicans Or.

No evidence has been either presented to, or found by, this
office for party of six pieces with a complex per fess line
(although we grant that we had limited research time, after our
last meeting in office). A similar field was registered ... in
October 1996 without comment, Party of six pieces per fess
nebuly gules and ermine, three anvils argent and three falcons
close sable. The practice also seems a reasonable extension
of the not-uncommon period design of quarterly with a complex per
fess line. Party of six pieces with a complex per fess line of
division seems, at worst, a single step from period practice (a
"weirdness"). [Petronella Underhill, 03/2004,
A-Drachenwald]

FIELD DIVISION --
Chevronelly

[Chevronelly Or and gules] Conflict
with Clare, Earl of Gloucester, Or three chevrons gules
(Important non-SCA armory). There is no difference between
chevronelly and multiple chevronels. [Ed.: See the 11/2001
LoAR for an extended discussion on why there is no
difference.] [Torfin de Carric, 11/2001,
R-Atlantia]
[Argent, two chevronels gules and overall an eagle displayed
sable] Should the two chevrons be considered equivalent to
a chevronelly field? No evidence was presented, and none
could be found, that two chevronels were an artistic variant of
chevronelly in period. The two designs seem visually distinct as
well. [Ivo Blackhawk, 01/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Argent, three chevronels azure and overall a fleur-de-lys
gules] In this emblazon, the three chevronels are crunched
together in the center of the shield. We would not expect to find
three chevronels so close together in period armory unless the
chevronels were forced close together due to the presence of
secondary charges (as one might find in the hypothetical armory
Argent, three chevronels azure between three fleurs-de-lys
gules). In this emblazon, the three chevronels were drawn so
close together that this armory could almost be reblazoned as
Argent, on a chevron azure two chevronels argent and overall a
fleur-de-lys gules. As a general rule, three chevronels will
be drawn to fill the field, and are in fact considered
interchangeable with the chevronelly field division (see the LoAR
of November 2001 for more details about this).

Period armory does admit the possibility of two small diminutives
of an ordinary that are close together (rather than filling the
shield): a bar gemel (bar "twinned"). The bar gemel
is heraldically distinct from two bars: the bar gemel
consists of two very thin bars drawn close together, while two
bars will fill the space allotted to them. A bar gemel
is, in effect, a voided bar. A good period example of this
practice can be seen in the Herald's Roll circa 1280 on p. 8 of
Bedingfield and Gwynn-Jones' Heraldry: a coat using two
bars is found in the center coat of the bottom row, whereas
armory using two bars gemel is found on the dexter coat of
the top row, and on the sinister coat of the middle row. No
evidence has been presented, and none has been found for a
"triplet" version of a bar gemel. The "gemel" treatment of other
ordinaries, such as chevronels, bendlets or pallets, is
vanishingly rare in period. Aside from a few examples of bendlets
gemel in the 15th C Italian Stemmario Trivulziano, no
evidence has been presented or found for gemel charges other than
bars. The idea of a triplet version of a chevronel is thus two
steps from period practice ("two weirdnesses") and not
registerable. Thus, it is not reasonable to interpret this
emblazon as using such a hypothetical "triplet chevronel."

Because this emblazon blurs the distinction between three
chevronels and a chevron charged with two chevronels, it may not
be registered per RfS VII.7.a, "Identification Requirement".
[Alessandra da Ferrara, 01/2004,
R-Meridies]

FIELD DIVISION
-- Gyronny

[Bendy sinister vert and Or, a hawk striking
contourny argent a bordure counterchanged] The commentary
from the College of Arms overwhelmingly indicated that the
combination of bendy sinister and bordure is excessive
counterchanging. In general, we would like to see documentation
for any charge counterchanged over a multiply divided field, such
as barry or gyronny. [Tvorimir Danilov, 08/2001,
R-An Tir]
[Gyronny sable and Or, a lozenge within a bordure azure]
The Letter of Intent asked whether an azure charge may be
identifiable on a partially sable gyronny field. RfS VIII.2.a.ii
indicates that this is a legal color combination as long as
identifiability is preserved. This emblazon maintains
identifiability due to the simple outline of the lozenge.
[Brigid of Kincarn, 01/2002,
A-Ansteorra]
[Gyronny vert and Or, a saltire counterchanged] The
combination of the gyronny field and the saltire is very visually
confusing. Each arm of the saltire is counterchanged along its
long axis, which generally hampers identifiability. Because each
piece of the counterchanged saltire is similar in size to the
pieces of the gyronny field which show between the arms of the
saltire, it is difficult to distinguish which parts of the
emblazon belong to the charge, and which belong to the field.
This design also does not appear to be period style. Absent
documentation for the design of a cross or saltire, as an
ordinary, counterchanged on a gyronny field in period, this must
be returned. [Wilhelm von Düsseldorf, 01/2002,
R-West]
[Gyronny of sixteen argent and sable, a salamander statant
regardant gules enflamed Or and a bordure counterchanged sable
and Or] The submitter's previous submission, Gyronny of
sixteen sable and argent, a salamander statant reguardant gules
enflamed Or, was returned for conflict in January 2001. At
that time, Laurel cited precedent from June 1999 indicating that
gyronny of sixteen is only acceptable in "simple cases" unless
period evidence supports the submission in question. Concerning
Johannes' submission, Laurel ruled, "While the single charge on
the field is very complex, it is still only a single charge.
Therefore this use of gyronny is acceptable.".

The submitter has now resubmitted adding a counterchanged
bordure, which removes the previous conflict. In general, we
consider a single primary charge within a bordure to be a "simple
case" of armorial design. Adding a solid-tinctured bordure to the
submitter's previous armory would certainly appear to be a simple
case. However, the counterchanged bordure adds substantially to
the visual complexity of the device, which led the College to
question whether this submission should be considered a simple
case.

In this submission, all the charges maintain their
identifiability despite the visual complexity of the device.
While the salamander's identifiability is somewhat confused by
the field, it is no less identifiable than the salamander in
Johannes' previous submission, which Laurel ruled to be
stylistically acceptable. The counterchanged bordure is clearly
identifiable as well. This submission is therefore acceptable.
However, it is at the absolute limit of complexity for accepting
gyronny of sixteen without documentation showing that the overall
design of the armory is consistent with period practice.
[Johannes Vagus, 06/2002,
A-An Tir]
[Gyronny arrondy of six azure and argent] Conflict with
... Gyronny arrondy of six gules and argent, and ...
Gyronny arrondy Or and azure. There is no difference
between gyronny of eight and gyronny of six, and
since both devices share a tincture with Hallr's, there is only
one CD for changing the tincture of the field.

Gyronny should always be drawn with one of its constituent lines
fesswise. With straight lines, one can blazon a field like this
one as per pale and per saltire, but this is not possible
when the lines are arrondy. This design has been returned for
redrawing in the LoAR of September 1996:

[Gyronny arrondi of six argent and gules] This is being
returned for a redraw. As Master Bruce as Laurel said in his
3/93 cover letter "Parker, p.301, states that gyronny of six
should be symmetric around the horizontal axis, not the
vertical axis; and this is borne out by such period examples as
I've been able to uncover."

[Dofinn-Hallr Morrisson, 02/2003,
R-East]
[Gyronny of sixteen argent and sable, four annulets in cross
azure] Precedent (as stated below) indicates that gyronny of
sixteen may be charged if the armory is simple and if the charges
maintain their identifiability. This armory is simple (using a
single group of identical charges in a standard arrangement) and
the charges do maintain their identifiability on this field.

We will register Gyronny of sixteen in simple cases, but
nothing more, barring period evidence (LoAR June 1999).

[Gyronny of sixteen argent and sable, a salamander statant
regardant gules enflamed Or and a bordure counterchanged sable
and Or] In this submission, all the charges maintain their
identifiability despite the visual complexity of the device.
While the salamander's identifiability is somewhat confused by
the field, it is no less identifiable than the salamander in
Johannes' previous submission [the same but without the
bordure], which Laurel ruled to be stylistically acceptable.
The counterchanged bordure is clearly identifiable as well.
This submission is therefore acceptable. However, it is at the
absolute limit of complexity for accepting gyronny of sixteen
without documentation showing that the overall design of the
armory is consistent with period practice. (LoAR June 2002)

[Kevin of Sentinels' Keep, 08/2003,
A-Artemisia]
[Gyronny of sixteen argent and sable, a bordure
counterchanged] The badge conflicts with ... Gyronny sable
and argent, a bordure counterchanged. The SCA gives no
difference between gyronny of sixteen and the default gyronny of
eight, although we usually note the distinction between the two
types of gyronny in blazon. There is no difference for changing
the order of the tinctures in gyronny fields per RfS X.4.a and
the SCA has traditionally extended this lack of difference to
gyronny charges. There are thus no CDs between these two pieces
of armory. [Minamoto Genkurô Tanekagé, 08/2003,
R-Artemisia]

FIELD DIVISION --
Miscellaneous

[Per pale and per chevron gules, Or,
sable, and argent, three crosses of Jerusalem counterchanged
argent and sable] No documentation has been presented, and
none was found, for per pale and per chevron of four tinctures. A
prior ruling noted that "No evidence has been provided for simple
coats with fields quarterly of three tinctures in period" (LoAR
November 1989). This was not clearly the sole reason for return
of the armory engendering the ruling but it contributed to the
return. This field is even farther from standard period practice,
as per pale and per chevron is far less common in period than
quarterly. Without documentation for a similar field in period,
combined with charges, this may not be accepted. [Seraphina
Sacheverell, 04/2002,
R-Caid]
[a sinister gore papellony Or and purpure] The gore was
originally blazoned as scaly. Scaly is defined in
the Pictorial Dictionary as "a field treatment, consisting
of many semi-circles or lunes, covering the field." The overall
effect of scaly is of thick lines on a background, as in the
field treatment masoned (but with the panes of a different
shape than in masoned.)

This gore is tinctured in a form of papellony, which is
also defined in the Pictorial Dictionary. Papellony has
two forms. One form looks much like scaly, functions as a field
treatment, and is blazoned as [background tincture] papellony
[treatment tincture]. The other form of papellony is a field
division and is blazoned as papellony [tincture x] and
[tincture y]. The second form is the form found in this
submission. It is drawn using solid panes of alternating
tinctures, as in the field lozengy, but with the panes shaped
like solid scales, rather than like the lozenges in
lozengy. See the Pictorial Dictionary for more
discussion. [Ailionóra inghean uí Mhurchadha, 08/2002,
A-Calontir]
No evidence was presented, and none was found, for schnecke (or
triply parted schnecke type fields) with a large charge overlying
the center of the field. Because such an overlying charge
obscures the already unusual underlying charge, unless
documentation is presented it will be considered, at best, a
weirdness. [Yang Mun, 04/2002,
R-Trimaris]
[Per fess azure and per pale gules and sable] The field
has unacceptable contrast. The pertinent rules for submission
concerning contrast in divided fields or other armorial elements
are:

RfS VIII.2.b.iii: Elements evenly divided into two parts, per
saltire, or quarterly may use any two tinctures or furs.

RfS VIII.2.b.iv: Elements evenly divided into multiple parts of
two different tinctures must have good contrast between their
parts.

RfS VIII.2.b.v: Elements evenly divided in three tinctures must
have good contrast between two of their parts.

While the rules for contrast do not explicitly
discuss fields which are divided unequally into multiple
parts, the overriding principle of the rules for divided fields
is that fields must have good contrast between their parts unless
they are "evenly divided into two parts, per saltire, or
quarterly." Here no portion of the field has good contrast with
any other portion of the field, so the overriding principle of
the rules for contrast are not met. [Grifon fuiz
Guillaume, 02/2003,
R-Æthelmearc]
... no difference is given between lozengy and lozengy bendwise
by prior precedent: "The field here [Lozengy azure and
argent] is functionally the same as Bavaria [Lozengy
bendwise azure and argent]" (LoAR December 1993 (b), p.10).
[Sybille la Chatte, 09/2003,
R-Lochac]
[Per saltire sable and vert ... and on a chief Or] Please
advise the submitter to draw the per saltire line issuing from
the intersection of the bottom of the chief and the side of the
field, rather than issuing entirely from the chief. [Fiacc
MacDougal, 10/2003,
A-Ansteorra]
[A landscape (in pale sky azure, snow-capped mountains argent,
hills vert, prairie proper, and a wheat field proper) and on a
chief argent a cross gules] This armory posed some difficult
questions regarding blazon:

The arms of Alberta are not stylistically compatible with
pre-1600 heraldry, and are thus not easily described by SCA
blazon.

...

We are fortunate to have benefited by the efficiency and
kindness of the Canadian Heraldic Authority. The Chief Herald of
Canada, Robert D. Watt, provided the following information:

The most definitive information we have here is found on page
209 of Conrad Swan's, (now Sir Conrad Swan) landmark study
entitled 'Canada: Symbols of Sovereignty' (University of
Toronto Press, 1977). In the chapter on Alberta, Sir Conrad
notes that the arms were assigned by Royal Warrant on 30 May
1907 and were blazoned as follows: 'Azure, in front of a range
of snowy mountains proper a range of hills Vert, in base a
wheat field surmounted by a prairie both also proper, on a
chief Argent a St. George's cross.' The reference he gives is
College of Arms 175.127. As he was York Herald at the time of
writing and had full access to the records of the College, I
believe it is fair to assume that this blazon can be considered
absolutely accurate.

The real-world official blazon of the province of
Alberta is not clearly comprehensible from the perspective of SCA
blazon. It uses the term surmounted in a different way
than we do. It also assumes that the reader is aware that a St.
George's cross is, by definition, a cross (throughout) gules. We
have elected to reblazon the armory for the SCA, as we generally
do with important real-world armory when it is necessary. We have
left in the ambiguous proper tinctures for the wheat field
and the prairie, as this ambiguity seems to be part of the
definition of the armory. By blazoning this armory, exclusive of
the chief, as a landscape, we hope to make it clear for
future researchers that this armory is distinct from most
heraldic treatments (aside from issues of purely visual
conflict). The landscape is not, for example, equivalent to a
variant of a barry field, or some combination of bars, but it is
an excellent example of an overly pictorial design per RfS
VIII.4.a, that could not be registered to a new SCA submitter.
[Alberta, 02/2004,
A-Society for Creative Anchronism]

FIELD DIVISION --
Paly

[Paly sable and argent, a unicorn rampant
counterchanged] This is excessively counterchanged and
non-period style. The unicorn is not identifiable when
counterchanged over this multiply divided field. No documentation
has been presented, nor could any be found, for the
counterchanging of a complex-outlined charge over a multiply
divided field. [Cynwrig Chwith, 02/2002,
R-Atlantia]
[Paly sable and Or] Conflict with Aragon (important
non-SCA arms) Or, four palets gules. These arms are
equivalent to Paly gules and Or (as well as Paly Or and
gules). "It was not unusual for barry or paly fields in
period to be drawn with an odd number of traits (which we'd
blazon as bars or palets); see, for example, the arms of Mouton
(Multon, Moleton) found both as Barry argent and gules and
Argent, three bars gules. (Dictionary of British
Arms, Volume 1, pp 59, 88; Foster, p.145) and the arms of von
Rosenberg, whose Per fess field has in base either three bends or
bendy depending upon the artist's whim (Siebmacher, p. 8;
Neubecker and Rentzmann, p. 290). Even when the distinction is
worth blazoning, it's worth no difference" (LoAR December 1997
p.8). Therefore there is only one CD for changing the tincture of
half the field. [Aethelwine Aethelredson, 02/2002,
R-Calontir]
[Argent, two pallets gules overall a tree vert] This does
not conflict with the important non-SCA arms of O'Connor Don ...
Argent, a tree eradicated vert. Armory using three or more
pallets is interchangeable with paly on visual grounds and on
grounds of historical heraldic difference. Armory using two
pallets is visually distinct from paly, and evidence was neither
presented nor found that paly and two pallets should be
considered artistic variants of each other in period. This is
therefore clear of O'Connor Don by RfS X.1 for adding a primary
charge group (the pallets). [Floris van Montfort, 05/2002,
A-Drachenwald]
[Paly azure and argent] Unfortunately, this beautiful
armory conflicts with Rolf Jarsson, Per pale azure and argent,
a pale counterchanged. Rolf's armory is visually too similar
to Paly of four azure and argent to be considered
different from that armory. There is no difference between
paly of four and the default paly (of six).
[Snorri Hallsson, 10/2003,
R-Ansteorra]
[Paly of four sable and argent, three horses statant to
sinister counterchanged] Per the LoAR of August 2001, "In
general, we would like to see documentation for any charge
counterchanged over a multiply divided field, such as barry or
gyronny." No documentation was presented with this submission
showing a general practice of counterchanging multiple
complex-outlined charges (like horses) over a multiply divided
field (like paly). Such designs are intrinsically difficult to
identify, and do not appear to be period style. Without
documentation for this practice, it may not be registered.
[Glyn of Chesshire, 11/2003,
R-Meridies]
[Pily bendy argent and sable, a sword inverted gules] This
device does not conflict with Pádraig Ó Riain, Or, a sword
inverted gules between two pallets dancetty vert. The
commenter raising this issue surmised that, perhaps, armory using
two pallets was interchangeable with a paly field - if so,
Pádraig's device would be heraldically interchangeable with
Paly dancetty Or and vert, a sword inverted gules.
However, this is not the case, since armory with only two pallets
is not interchangeable with a paly field:

Armory using three or more pallets is interchangeable with paly
on visual grounds and on grounds of historical heraldic
difference. Armory using two pallets is visually distinct from
paly, and evidence was neither presented nor found that paly
and two pallets should be considered artistic variants of each
other in period. (LoAR of May 2002)

The reader interested in the general
interchangeability of three or more diminutives of ordinaries
multiply divided fields should also reference the LoAR of
February 2002 (for the interchangeability of paly and
three or more pallets, and the interchangeability of
barry and three or more bars), and the LoAR of
November 2001 (for the interchangeability of chevronelly
and three or more chevronels).